ANSWER

The correct answer is all of the above (choice “f”).

DISCUSSION

The most likely diagnostic explanation for this patient’s presentation is erythema annulare centrifugum (EAC; choice “c”). However, this diagnosis is often difficult to establish, in part because of the broad differential and also because the very existence of EAC is far from well established.

The overwhelming consensus is that EAC represents a hypersensitivity reaction to an unknown antigen. It can be triggered by a wide variety of micro-organisms, stress, or even pregnancy.

In this case, there was no clinical or historical reason to suspect an underlying cancer, Lyme disease, or lupus, nor did the biopsy results suggest any of these.

The key takeaway here is to urge providers to avoid jumping onto a diagnostic bandwagon before considering a wider differential. Indeed, size matters when it relates to the length of one’s differential diagnosis list. If you don’t consider it, you can’t diagnose it.

TREATMENT

Fortunately, EAC nearly always resolves, with or without treatment. This patient received reassurance as such but was scheduled to return for a check of his lesions in 2 months. At that point, they had resolved.

ANSWER

The correct answer is all of the above (choice “f”).

DISCUSSION

The most likely diagnostic explanation for this patient’s presentation is erythema annulare centrifugum (EAC; choice “c”). However, this diagnosis is often difficult to establish, in part because of the broad differential and also because the very existence of EAC is far from well established.

The overwhelming consensus is that EAC represents a hypersensitivity reaction to an unknown antigen. It can be triggered by a wide variety of micro-organisms, stress, or even pregnancy.

In this case, there was no clinical or historical reason to suspect an underlying cancer, Lyme disease, or lupus, nor did the biopsy results suggest any of these.

The key takeaway here is to urge providers to avoid jumping onto a diagnostic bandwagon before considering a wider differential. Indeed, size matters when it relates to the length of one’s differential diagnosis list. If you don’t consider it, you can’t diagnose it.

TREATMENT

Fortunately, EAC nearly always resolves, with or without treatment. This patient received reassurance as such but was scheduled to return for a check of his lesions in 2 months. At that point, they had resolved.

ANSWER

The correct answer is all of the above (choice “f”).

DISCUSSION

The most likely diagnostic explanation for this patient’s presentation is erythema annulare centrifugum (EAC; choice “c”). However, this diagnosis is often difficult to establish, in part because of the broad differential and also because the very existence of EAC is far from well established.

The overwhelming consensus is that EAC represents a hypersensitivity reaction to an unknown antigen. It can be triggered by a wide variety of micro-organisms, stress, or even pregnancy.

In this case, there was no clinical or historical reason to suspect an underlying cancer, Lyme disease, or lupus, nor did the biopsy results suggest any of these.

The key takeaway here is to urge providers to avoid jumping onto a diagnostic bandwagon before considering a wider differential. Indeed, size matters when it relates to the length of one’s differential diagnosis list. If you don’t consider it, you can’t diagnose it.

TREATMENT

Fortunately, EAC nearly always resolves, with or without treatment. This patient received reassurance as such but was scheduled to return for a check of his lesions in 2 months. At that point, they had resolved.

Worldwide, nearly 8% of men who have sex with men (MSM) may have syphilis, a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests. This estimate, generated from 275 studies across 77 countries, is 15 times greater than the most recent estimates of syphilis prevalence in men in a general population.

“That disparity is absolutely unacceptable,” Matthew Chico, PhD, associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and senior author of the review, said in an interview.

Although the World Health Organization (WHO) aims to reduce the global prevalence of syphilis by 90% by 2030, an ambitious goal set in 2016, recent research suggests syphilis numbers are moving in the opposite direction. Cases in the United States rose 74% between 2015 and 2019, and other nations, such as Australia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, are seeing similar trends.

Syphilis prevalence is generally higher in MSM, largely in subpopulations of men who have multiple sexual partners, Kenneth Mayer, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Mayer is medical research director at the Fenway Institute, Boston, and was not involved with the study.

Health literacy, lack of access to care, and medical mistrust can all be challenges to screening, identifying, and treating the infection in this population.

Reducing syphilis cases will require focusing interventions on higher-risk groups such as MSM, said Dr. Chico; however, there was “a real dearth in knowledge about the most likely prevalence of syphilis among MSM on a global level,” he said.

To help fill in the gaps, Dr. Chico and his research team collected studies that included syphilis prevalence data for MSM published between Jan. 1, 2000, and Feb. 1, 2020. Researchers excluded studies that included only MSM living with HIV, injection drug users, patients who routinely visit sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics, and people seeking care only for STIs or other genital symptoms, because these studies would have skewed global syphilis prevalence estimates higher.

Their review, published July 8 in The Lancet Global Health, found that the pooled global prevalence of syphilis from 2000-2020 in MSM was 7.5%. It ranged from 1.9% in Australia and New Zealand to 10.6% in Latin America and the Caribbean. In comparison, the WHO estimates that globally, 0.5% of men in a general population have syphilis, a 15-fold difference.

This elevated estimate is not surprising, and the review provides a more international view of syphilis. Earlier attempts to estimate the prevalence of syphilis among MSM were generally conducted in higher-income countries such as the United States, Dr. Mayer said. “It’s important that clinicians recognize that this is a global health issue, so they can do the appropriate screening.”

The review found that regions in which the prevalence of HIV was above 5% had higher rates of syphilis (8.7%) compared to regions in which the prevalence of HIV was below 5% (6.6%). Pooled syphilis prevalence estimates were also higher for lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries (8.7% and 8.6%, respectively).

Global syphilis prevalence dipped from 8.9% in studies from 2000 to 2009 to 6.6% in studies from 2010 to 2020. In Europe, Northern America, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand), syphilis prevalence estimates for 2015-2020 were higher compared with 2010-2014.

The authors acknowledged that there were some limitations to the study, particularly that regions of Eastern and Southeastern Asia contributed more than half (54.5%) of the global data points used in the study and accounted for more than 82% of the study’s participants. This highlights the lack of data from other regions around the world, Dr. Chico said.

Dr. Chico said these findings “serve as a clarion call to action” to focus interventions on groups at higher risk for syphilis, such as MSM, in the effort to drastically reduce syphilis cases around the world. Dr. Mayer agrees. “[Syphilis] is a readily diagnosable and treatable infection,” he said. “It definitely is something that we should be able to get a handle on, but that requires paying attention to the different subgroups who have particularly high rates of the infection.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Worldwide, nearly 8% of men who have sex with men (MSM) may have syphilis, a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests. This estimate, generated from 275 studies across 77 countries, is 15 times greater than the most recent estimates of syphilis prevalence in men in a general population.

“That disparity is absolutely unacceptable,” Matthew Chico, PhD, associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and senior author of the review, said in an interview.

Although the World Health Organization (WHO) aims to reduce the global prevalence of syphilis by 90% by 2030, an ambitious goal set in 2016, recent research suggests syphilis numbers are moving in the opposite direction. Cases in the United States rose 74% between 2015 and 2019, and other nations, such as Australia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, are seeing similar trends.

Syphilis prevalence is generally higher in MSM, largely in subpopulations of men who have multiple sexual partners, Kenneth Mayer, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Mayer is medical research director at the Fenway Institute, Boston, and was not involved with the study.

Health literacy, lack of access to care, and medical mistrust can all be challenges to screening, identifying, and treating the infection in this population.

Reducing syphilis cases will require focusing interventions on higher-risk groups such as MSM, said Dr. Chico; however, there was “a real dearth in knowledge about the most likely prevalence of syphilis among MSM on a global level,” he said.

To help fill in the gaps, Dr. Chico and his research team collected studies that included syphilis prevalence data for MSM published between Jan. 1, 2000, and Feb. 1, 2020. Researchers excluded studies that included only MSM living with HIV, injection drug users, patients who routinely visit sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics, and people seeking care only for STIs or other genital symptoms, because these studies would have skewed global syphilis prevalence estimates higher.

Their review, published July 8 in The Lancet Global Health, found that the pooled global prevalence of syphilis from 2000-2020 in MSM was 7.5%. It ranged from 1.9% in Australia and New Zealand to 10.6% in Latin America and the Caribbean. In comparison, the WHO estimates that globally, 0.5% of men in a general population have syphilis, a 15-fold difference.

This elevated estimate is not surprising, and the review provides a more international view of syphilis. Earlier attempts to estimate the prevalence of syphilis among MSM were generally conducted in higher-income countries such as the United States, Dr. Mayer said. “It’s important that clinicians recognize that this is a global health issue, so they can do the appropriate screening.”

The review found that regions in which the prevalence of HIV was above 5% had higher rates of syphilis (8.7%) compared to regions in which the prevalence of HIV was below 5% (6.6%). Pooled syphilis prevalence estimates were also higher for lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries (8.7% and 8.6%, respectively).

Global syphilis prevalence dipped from 8.9% in studies from 2000 to 2009 to 6.6% in studies from 2010 to 2020. In Europe, Northern America, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand), syphilis prevalence estimates for 2015-2020 were higher compared with 2010-2014.

The authors acknowledged that there were some limitations to the study, particularly that regions of Eastern and Southeastern Asia contributed more than half (54.5%) of the global data points used in the study and accounted for more than 82% of the study’s participants. This highlights the lack of data from other regions around the world, Dr. Chico said.

Dr. Chico said these findings “serve as a clarion call to action” to focus interventions on groups at higher risk for syphilis, such as MSM, in the effort to drastically reduce syphilis cases around the world. Dr. Mayer agrees. “[Syphilis] is a readily diagnosable and treatable infection,” he said. “It definitely is something that we should be able to get a handle on, but that requires paying attention to the different subgroups who have particularly high rates of the infection.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Worldwide, nearly 8% of men who have sex with men (MSM) may have syphilis, a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests. This estimate, generated from 275 studies across 77 countries, is 15 times greater than the most recent estimates of syphilis prevalence in men in a general population.

“That disparity is absolutely unacceptable,” Matthew Chico, PhD, associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and senior author of the review, said in an interview.

Although the World Health Organization (WHO) aims to reduce the global prevalence of syphilis by 90% by 2030, an ambitious goal set in 2016, recent research suggests syphilis numbers are moving in the opposite direction. Cases in the United States rose 74% between 2015 and 2019, and other nations, such as Australia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, are seeing similar trends.

Syphilis prevalence is generally higher in MSM, largely in subpopulations of men who have multiple sexual partners, Kenneth Mayer, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Mayer is medical research director at the Fenway Institute, Boston, and was not involved with the study.

Health literacy, lack of access to care, and medical mistrust can all be challenges to screening, identifying, and treating the infection in this population.

Reducing syphilis cases will require focusing interventions on higher-risk groups such as MSM, said Dr. Chico; however, there was “a real dearth in knowledge about the most likely prevalence of syphilis among MSM on a global level,” he said.

To help fill in the gaps, Dr. Chico and his research team collected studies that included syphilis prevalence data for MSM published between Jan. 1, 2000, and Feb. 1, 2020. Researchers excluded studies that included only MSM living with HIV, injection drug users, patients who routinely visit sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics, and people seeking care only for STIs or other genital symptoms, because these studies would have skewed global syphilis prevalence estimates higher.

Their review, published July 8 in The Lancet Global Health, found that the pooled global prevalence of syphilis from 2000-2020 in MSM was 7.5%. It ranged from 1.9% in Australia and New Zealand to 10.6% in Latin America and the Caribbean. In comparison, the WHO estimates that globally, 0.5% of men in a general population have syphilis, a 15-fold difference.

This elevated estimate is not surprising, and the review provides a more international view of syphilis. Earlier attempts to estimate the prevalence of syphilis among MSM were generally conducted in higher-income countries such as the United States, Dr. Mayer said. “It’s important that clinicians recognize that this is a global health issue, so they can do the appropriate screening.”

The review found that regions in which the prevalence of HIV was above 5% had higher rates of syphilis (8.7%) compared to regions in which the prevalence of HIV was below 5% (6.6%). Pooled syphilis prevalence estimates were also higher for lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries (8.7% and 8.6%, respectively).

Global syphilis prevalence dipped from 8.9% in studies from 2000 to 2009 to 6.6% in studies from 2010 to 2020. In Europe, Northern America, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand), syphilis prevalence estimates for 2015-2020 were higher compared with 2010-2014.

The authors acknowledged that there were some limitations to the study, particularly that regions of Eastern and Southeastern Asia contributed more than half (54.5%) of the global data points used in the study and accounted for more than 82% of the study’s participants. This highlights the lack of data from other regions around the world, Dr. Chico said.

Dr. Chico said these findings “serve as a clarion call to action” to focus interventions on groups at higher risk for syphilis, such as MSM, in the effort to drastically reduce syphilis cases around the world. Dr. Mayer agrees. “[Syphilis] is a readily diagnosable and treatable infection,” he said. “It definitely is something that we should be able to get a handle on, but that requires paying attention to the different subgroups who have particularly high rates of the infection.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thoughtful, targeted approaches are needed to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates in Black and Latinx communities, which often distrust the health care system and face barriers to vaccine access, new data show.

“Black, Latinx, and Native American individuals represent about a combined 60% of COVID-19 deaths, despite comprising significantly less of the United States population,” said Jacinda C. Abdul-Mutakabbir, PharmD, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University.

“To put this into perspective, Black individuals represent 13.4% of the United States population, while Native Americans represent 1.6%, clearly showing the disproportionate outcomes here,” she explained during her online presentation at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.

The vaccine creates an opportunity to change the disproportionate way COVID-19 has affected racial and ethnic communities, said Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir, but “a long history of mistreatment within the U.S. health care system decreases their trust for the system to use fair practices when delivering these vaccines.”

For people in minority communities, often “the fear of cost associated with health care keeps them from being vaccinated,” she said. “Also, there is a lack of vaccines actually allocated to these communities, or inconsistent computer-based sign-ups that make WiFi mandatory, which in turn has created additional barriers for vaccination access.”

Loma Linda University maintains the largest mass-vaccination site in San Bernardino County, the fourth-largest county in southern California. However, only 3.0% of the people vaccinated there have been Black. And although 8% of the state’s population is Black, only 2.7% of the Black population has been vaccinated.

In contrast, Black Californians have accounted for about 20% of COVID-19 cases in the state, and 20%-30% of COVID-19 deaths.

To promote equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir and colleagues developed a “three-tiered approach.” First, they had local Black faith leaders hold summits ahead of the vaccination clinics. Next, at those summits, they had a Black pharmacist educate attendees about the vaccines. And finally, they held a low-barrier community vaccination clinic in a Black community, where the pharmacist oversaw the transport and preparation of the vaccines.

Because access, transportation, and internet are all barriers to vaccination, the clinic used paper-based registration and was held as a pop-up clinic at a local Black church. The team held two clinics for the first Moderna dose, one clinic for the second Moderna dose, and one clinic for the Johnson & Johnson one-dose vaccine.

During the Moderna first-dose clinics, 673 vaccinations were administered, and during the second-dose clinic, 366 were administered. Early data showed a return rate of 87%, but the team has yet to update the final numbers, Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir reported. During the Johnson & Johnson clinic, 314 vaccinations were administered, nearly half to Black people. After the community vaccination clinics, the mass vaccination site saw a 0.6% increase in vaccinations for Black people.

Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir’s team also held three community clinics in Latinx communities. During the first-dose Moderna pop-up clinic, 258 vaccinations were administered, and during the second-dose clinic, 253 were, for a 98% return rate. Approximately 92% of those vaccinated were Latinx. 

The study findings are not surprising, said Rhea Boyd, MD, director of equity and justice for California Children’s Trust.

“The barriers to vaccination are known and clear,” she said in an interview. “Mobile clinics with paper appointments address a number of those barriers head on, like transportation, internet access, and accessibility. Having Black providers leading the effort and church leaders involved also has been shown to increase confidence in the operations and process.”

Information campaigns can help counter online disinformation. Ultimately, however, “the main barrier to vaccination is access,” Dr. Boyd said. “Address access and rates will increase.”

The health inequities seen in vaccination rates among Black and Latinx people “are a product of structural and systemic racism,” Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir said. “To create equitable processes, it is essential that we evaluate how we approach each of these different minoritized groups.”

Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Boyd codeveloped THE CONVERSATION, a national campaign to bring credible information about the COVID vaccines to Black and Latinx communities in partnership with KFF, BCAC, and Unidos US.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thoughtful, targeted approaches are needed to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates in Black and Latinx communities, which often distrust the health care system and face barriers to vaccine access, new data show.

“Black, Latinx, and Native American individuals represent about a combined 60% of COVID-19 deaths, despite comprising significantly less of the United States population,” said Jacinda C. Abdul-Mutakabbir, PharmD, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University.

“To put this into perspective, Black individuals represent 13.4% of the United States population, while Native Americans represent 1.6%, clearly showing the disproportionate outcomes here,” she explained during her online presentation at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.

The vaccine creates an opportunity to change the disproportionate way COVID-19 has affected racial and ethnic communities, said Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir, but “a long history of mistreatment within the U.S. health care system decreases their trust for the system to use fair practices when delivering these vaccines.”

For people in minority communities, often “the fear of cost associated with health care keeps them from being vaccinated,” she said. “Also, there is a lack of vaccines actually allocated to these communities, or inconsistent computer-based sign-ups that make WiFi mandatory, which in turn has created additional barriers for vaccination access.”

Loma Linda University maintains the largest mass-vaccination site in San Bernardino County, the fourth-largest county in southern California. However, only 3.0% of the people vaccinated there have been Black. And although 8% of the state’s population is Black, only 2.7% of the Black population has been vaccinated.

In contrast, Black Californians have accounted for about 20% of COVID-19 cases in the state, and 20%-30% of COVID-19 deaths.

To promote equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir and colleagues developed a “three-tiered approach.” First, they had local Black faith leaders hold summits ahead of the vaccination clinics. Next, at those summits, they had a Black pharmacist educate attendees about the vaccines. And finally, they held a low-barrier community vaccination clinic in a Black community, where the pharmacist oversaw the transport and preparation of the vaccines.

Because access, transportation, and internet are all barriers to vaccination, the clinic used paper-based registration and was held as a pop-up clinic at a local Black church. The team held two clinics for the first Moderna dose, one clinic for the second Moderna dose, and one clinic for the Johnson & Johnson one-dose vaccine.

During the Moderna first-dose clinics, 673 vaccinations were administered, and during the second-dose clinic, 366 were administered. Early data showed a return rate of 87%, but the team has yet to update the final numbers, Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir reported. During the Johnson & Johnson clinic, 314 vaccinations were administered, nearly half to Black people. After the community vaccination clinics, the mass vaccination site saw a 0.6% increase in vaccinations for Black people.

Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir’s team also held three community clinics in Latinx communities. During the first-dose Moderna pop-up clinic, 258 vaccinations were administered, and during the second-dose clinic, 253 were, for a 98% return rate. Approximately 92% of those vaccinated were Latinx. 

The study findings are not surprising, said Rhea Boyd, MD, director of equity and justice for California Children’s Trust.

“The barriers to vaccination are known and clear,” she said in an interview. “Mobile clinics with paper appointments address a number of those barriers head on, like transportation, internet access, and accessibility. Having Black providers leading the effort and church leaders involved also has been shown to increase confidence in the operations and process.”

Information campaigns can help counter online disinformation. Ultimately, however, “the main barrier to vaccination is access,” Dr. Boyd said. “Address access and rates will increase.”

The health inequities seen in vaccination rates among Black and Latinx people “are a product of structural and systemic racism,” Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir said. “To create equitable processes, it is essential that we evaluate how we approach each of these different minoritized groups.”

Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Boyd codeveloped THE CONVERSATION, a national campaign to bring credible information about the COVID vaccines to Black and Latinx communities in partnership with KFF, BCAC, and Unidos US.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thoughtful, targeted approaches are needed to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates in Black and Latinx communities, which often distrust the health care system and face barriers to vaccine access, new data show.

“Black, Latinx, and Native American individuals represent about a combined 60% of COVID-19 deaths, despite comprising significantly less of the United States population,” said Jacinda C. Abdul-Mutakabbir, PharmD, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University.

“To put this into perspective, Black individuals represent 13.4% of the United States population, while Native Americans represent 1.6%, clearly showing the disproportionate outcomes here,” she explained during her online presentation at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.

The vaccine creates an opportunity to change the disproportionate way COVID-19 has affected racial and ethnic communities, said Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir, but “a long history of mistreatment within the U.S. health care system decreases their trust for the system to use fair practices when delivering these vaccines.”

For people in minority communities, often “the fear of cost associated with health care keeps them from being vaccinated,” she said. “Also, there is a lack of vaccines actually allocated to these communities, or inconsistent computer-based sign-ups that make WiFi mandatory, which in turn has created additional barriers for vaccination access.”

Loma Linda University maintains the largest mass-vaccination site in San Bernardino County, the fourth-largest county in southern California. However, only 3.0% of the people vaccinated there have been Black. And although 8% of the state’s population is Black, only 2.7% of the Black population has been vaccinated.

In contrast, Black Californians have accounted for about 20% of COVID-19 cases in the state, and 20%-30% of COVID-19 deaths.

To promote equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir and colleagues developed a “three-tiered approach.” First, they had local Black faith leaders hold summits ahead of the vaccination clinics. Next, at those summits, they had a Black pharmacist educate attendees about the vaccines. And finally, they held a low-barrier community vaccination clinic in a Black community, where the pharmacist oversaw the transport and preparation of the vaccines.

Because access, transportation, and internet are all barriers to vaccination, the clinic used paper-based registration and was held as a pop-up clinic at a local Black church. The team held two clinics for the first Moderna dose, one clinic for the second Moderna dose, and one clinic for the Johnson & Johnson one-dose vaccine.

During the Moderna first-dose clinics, 673 vaccinations were administered, and during the second-dose clinic, 366 were administered. Early data showed a return rate of 87%, but the team has yet to update the final numbers, Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir reported. During the Johnson & Johnson clinic, 314 vaccinations were administered, nearly half to Black people. After the community vaccination clinics, the mass vaccination site saw a 0.6% increase in vaccinations for Black people.

Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir’s team also held three community clinics in Latinx communities. During the first-dose Moderna pop-up clinic, 258 vaccinations were administered, and during the second-dose clinic, 253 were, for a 98% return rate. Approximately 92% of those vaccinated were Latinx. 

The study findings are not surprising, said Rhea Boyd, MD, director of equity and justice for California Children’s Trust.

“The barriers to vaccination are known and clear,” she said in an interview. “Mobile clinics with paper appointments address a number of those barriers head on, like transportation, internet access, and accessibility. Having Black providers leading the effort and church leaders involved also has been shown to increase confidence in the operations and process.”

Information campaigns can help counter online disinformation. Ultimately, however, “the main barrier to vaccination is access,” Dr. Boyd said. “Address access and rates will increase.”

The health inequities seen in vaccination rates among Black and Latinx people “are a product of structural and systemic racism,” Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir said. “To create equitable processes, it is essential that we evaluate how we approach each of these different minoritized groups.”

Dr. Abdul-Mutakabbir disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Boyd codeveloped THE CONVERSATION, a national campaign to bring credible information about the COVID vaccines to Black and Latinx communities in partnership with KFF, BCAC, and Unidos US.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A lack of consensus in the evidence regarding the antiviral remdesivir (Veklury) to treat people with COVID-19 continues, leaving clinicians without clear direction on one of the few treatments for the illness approved under U.S. Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization.

The latest research comes from Michael Ohl, MD, MSPH, and colleagues, who studied a large group of VA patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Compared with a matched group of veterans who did not receive the antiviral, remdesivir did not significantly improve survival.

The percentages were close: 12.2% of patients in the remdesivir group died within 30 days compared with 10.6% of those in the control group.

At the same time, the retrospective cohort study showed remdesivir was associated with more days in the hospital.

“There is still uncertainty about the role of remdesivir in treatment for people hospitalized with COVID-19,” Dr. Ohl told this news organization.

“It is reasonable to follow the CDC and Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for remdesivir use, “but clinicians should avoid admitting people or keeping people in the hospital solely to receive remdesivir if they do not meet other criteria for hospitalization,” said Dr. Ohl, lead author and an infectious disease specialist at the Center for Access & Delivery Research and Evaluation, Iowa City Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System.

The study was published online July 15 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Sticking with the official protocol?

The longer a hospital stays associated with remdesivir, a median 6 days versus 3 days, could be a result of treating people for 5 or 10 days with the antiviral agent. In other words, it is “possible that clinicians were not discharging patients who otherwise met the criteria for hospital discharge until the remdesivir course was completed,” Dr. Ohl and colleagues note.

Not doing so, they add, could have resulted in “increased used of scarce hospital beds during the pandemic.”

“The recommended remdesivir treatment course is a somewhat arbitrary 5 or 10 days depending on illness severity, and remdesivir is currently available only as an intravenous formulation for use in health care settings,” they add.

This is the “most likely explanation,” notes Gio J. Baracco, MD, in an invited commentary accompanying the study.

At the time of the study, use of remdesivir also required patient consent, close adverse event monitoring, and ongoing testing, Dr. Baracco notes.

He added that an option to discharge patients earlier if they responded to treatment might have been lost in translation from clinical trial protocol to real-world use in the VA system.

While a large clinical trial protocol called for the remdesivir infusions to be stopped early if the patient met the primary outcome and was ready to be discharged, “this detail was not adequately translated to the clinicians treating these patients,” added Dr. Baracco, who’s with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and the Miami VA Healthcare System.
 

Conflicting evidence

Another large study, the World Health Organization Solidarity Trial, found remdesivir was not associated with shorter hospital stays or improved survival compared with standard of care. For this reason, the WHO recommends against use of remdesivir.

In contrast, the double-blind, randomized Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-1) linked remdesivir treatment to shorter stays in the hospital, a median 10 days versus 15 days in a placebo group.

The FDA included the 2020 ACTT-1 in its consideration for remdesivir emergency use authorization. The FDA issued the EUA in May 2020, followed by full approval as the first treatment indicated for COVID-19 in October.

ACTT-1 lead author John H. Beigel, MD, and colleagues also looked at the death rates for remdesivir versus placebo.

By day 15, the proportion of people who died was 6.7% in the remdesivir group versus 11%. By day 29, the rate was 11.4% among those who received the antiviral versus 15.2% among those who did not.

When asked why the VA and ACTT-1 studies yielded different results, Dr. Beigel cited two reasons. The timing was different, with the VA study starting after the remdesivir EUA was issued, and ACTT-1 findings were announced.

“So at that point, clinicians understood those populations most likely to benefit from remdesivir. The use of remdesivir likely did not occur at random; it was likely to be more commonly used in those who were sicker or at higher risk for poor outcomes,” said Dr. Beigel, associate director for clinical research in the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

In addition, the studies evaluated very different populations, he said. The differences in median duration of hospitalization between the trials reflects this, Dr. Beigel added.

Furthermore, when asked if he thinks the new evidence should affect clinical use of remdesivir, Dr. Beigel replied, “No. Observational studies, even with adjustments such as propensity score matching, are not equivalent levels of proof compared to randomized trials.”
 

Study details

Dr. Ohl and colleagues identified patients admitted to one of 123 VA hospitals for the first time for COVID-19 from May 1 to Oct. 8, 2020. Each had a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The researchers then compared 1,172 patients receiving remdesivir to another 1,172 patients not receiving the agent.

Those receiving remdesivir were more likely to be older, White, have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and have more severe COVID-19. A total 94% of the remdesivir group were men.

“Over 90% of the people included in VA study were men, mostly over the age of 60,” Dr. Ohl said when asked how generalizable the findings would be to a non-VA population.

“There is no obvious biological reason that remdesivir should have different effects in men and women, but we should be cautious about extrapolating study findings to women and younger individuals,” he added.

Limitations of the study include its observational design, which makes unadjusted confounding based on illness severity a possibility. In addition, the investigators were unable to identify specific subgroups that might benefit from remdesivir treatment.

The data did suggest that remdesivir was more effective earlier in the course of disease when patients required supplemental oxygen and before need for mechanical ventilation.

Dr. Baracco pointed out the contradictory findings in his commentary: “The real-life application of a drug promising to hasten discharge from the hospital as its primary beneficial outcome must include an assessment of how easy it is to do so and make it clear that once a patient reaches that point, they can discontinue the drug.”

“The paradoxical findings in the study by Dr. Ohl et al. compared with the study used for its authorization illustrate this point very clearly,” he adds.

Dr. Ohl reported receiving grants from Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development during the conduct of the study and consulting for Gilead Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Baracco reported receiving salary support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Beigel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A lack of consensus in the evidence regarding the antiviral remdesivir (Veklury) to treat people with COVID-19 continues, leaving clinicians without clear direction on one of the few treatments for the illness approved under U.S. Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization.

The latest research comes from Michael Ohl, MD, MSPH, and colleagues, who studied a large group of VA patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Compared with a matched group of veterans who did not receive the antiviral, remdesivir did not significantly improve survival.

The percentages were close: 12.2% of patients in the remdesivir group died within 30 days compared with 10.6% of those in the control group.

At the same time, the retrospective cohort study showed remdesivir was associated with more days in the hospital.

“There is still uncertainty about the role of remdesivir in treatment for people hospitalized with COVID-19,” Dr. Ohl told this news organization.

“It is reasonable to follow the CDC and Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for remdesivir use, “but clinicians should avoid admitting people or keeping people in the hospital solely to receive remdesivir if they do not meet other criteria for hospitalization,” said Dr. Ohl, lead author and an infectious disease specialist at the Center for Access & Delivery Research and Evaluation, Iowa City Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System.

The study was published online July 15 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Sticking with the official protocol?

The longer a hospital stays associated with remdesivir, a median 6 days versus 3 days, could be a result of treating people for 5 or 10 days with the antiviral agent. In other words, it is “possible that clinicians were not discharging patients who otherwise met the criteria for hospital discharge until the remdesivir course was completed,” Dr. Ohl and colleagues note.

Not doing so, they add, could have resulted in “increased used of scarce hospital beds during the pandemic.”

“The recommended remdesivir treatment course is a somewhat arbitrary 5 or 10 days depending on illness severity, and remdesivir is currently available only as an intravenous formulation for use in health care settings,” they add.

This is the “most likely explanation,” notes Gio J. Baracco, MD, in an invited commentary accompanying the study.

At the time of the study, use of remdesivir also required patient consent, close adverse event monitoring, and ongoing testing, Dr. Baracco notes.

He added that an option to discharge patients earlier if they responded to treatment might have been lost in translation from clinical trial protocol to real-world use in the VA system.

While a large clinical trial protocol called for the remdesivir infusions to be stopped early if the patient met the primary outcome and was ready to be discharged, “this detail was not adequately translated to the clinicians treating these patients,” added Dr. Baracco, who’s with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and the Miami VA Healthcare System.
 

Conflicting evidence

Another large study, the World Health Organization Solidarity Trial, found remdesivir was not associated with shorter hospital stays or improved survival compared with standard of care. For this reason, the WHO recommends against use of remdesivir.

In contrast, the double-blind, randomized Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-1) linked remdesivir treatment to shorter stays in the hospital, a median 10 days versus 15 days in a placebo group.

The FDA included the 2020 ACTT-1 in its consideration for remdesivir emergency use authorization. The FDA issued the EUA in May 2020, followed by full approval as the first treatment indicated for COVID-19 in October.

ACTT-1 lead author John H. Beigel, MD, and colleagues also looked at the death rates for remdesivir versus placebo.

By day 15, the proportion of people who died was 6.7% in the remdesivir group versus 11%. By day 29, the rate was 11.4% among those who received the antiviral versus 15.2% among those who did not.

When asked why the VA and ACTT-1 studies yielded different results, Dr. Beigel cited two reasons. The timing was different, with the VA study starting after the remdesivir EUA was issued, and ACTT-1 findings were announced.

“So at that point, clinicians understood those populations most likely to benefit from remdesivir. The use of remdesivir likely did not occur at random; it was likely to be more commonly used in those who were sicker or at higher risk for poor outcomes,” said Dr. Beigel, associate director for clinical research in the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

In addition, the studies evaluated very different populations, he said. The differences in median duration of hospitalization between the trials reflects this, Dr. Beigel added.

Furthermore, when asked if he thinks the new evidence should affect clinical use of remdesivir, Dr. Beigel replied, “No. Observational studies, even with adjustments such as propensity score matching, are not equivalent levels of proof compared to randomized trials.”
 

Study details

Dr. Ohl and colleagues identified patients admitted to one of 123 VA hospitals for the first time for COVID-19 from May 1 to Oct. 8, 2020. Each had a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The researchers then compared 1,172 patients receiving remdesivir to another 1,172 patients not receiving the agent.

Those receiving remdesivir were more likely to be older, White, have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and have more severe COVID-19. A total 94% of the remdesivir group were men.

“Over 90% of the people included in VA study were men, mostly over the age of 60,” Dr. Ohl said when asked how generalizable the findings would be to a non-VA population.

“There is no obvious biological reason that remdesivir should have different effects in men and women, but we should be cautious about extrapolating study findings to women and younger individuals,” he added.

Limitations of the study include its observational design, which makes unadjusted confounding based on illness severity a possibility. In addition, the investigators were unable to identify specific subgroups that might benefit from remdesivir treatment.

The data did suggest that remdesivir was more effective earlier in the course of disease when patients required supplemental oxygen and before need for mechanical ventilation.

Dr. Baracco pointed out the contradictory findings in his commentary: “The real-life application of a drug promising to hasten discharge from the hospital as its primary beneficial outcome must include an assessment of how easy it is to do so and make it clear that once a patient reaches that point, they can discontinue the drug.”

“The paradoxical findings in the study by Dr. Ohl et al. compared with the study used for its authorization illustrate this point very clearly,” he adds.

Dr. Ohl reported receiving grants from Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development during the conduct of the study and consulting for Gilead Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Baracco reported receiving salary support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Beigel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A lack of consensus in the evidence regarding the antiviral remdesivir (Veklury) to treat people with COVID-19 continues, leaving clinicians without clear direction on one of the few treatments for the illness approved under U.S. Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization.

The latest research comes from Michael Ohl, MD, MSPH, and colleagues, who studied a large group of VA patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Compared with a matched group of veterans who did not receive the antiviral, remdesivir did not significantly improve survival.

The percentages were close: 12.2% of patients in the remdesivir group died within 30 days compared with 10.6% of those in the control group.

At the same time, the retrospective cohort study showed remdesivir was associated with more days in the hospital.

“There is still uncertainty about the role of remdesivir in treatment for people hospitalized with COVID-19,” Dr. Ohl told this news organization.

“It is reasonable to follow the CDC and Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for remdesivir use, “but clinicians should avoid admitting people or keeping people in the hospital solely to receive remdesivir if they do not meet other criteria for hospitalization,” said Dr. Ohl, lead author and an infectious disease specialist at the Center for Access & Delivery Research and Evaluation, Iowa City Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System.

The study was published online July 15 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Sticking with the official protocol?

The longer a hospital stays associated with remdesivir, a median 6 days versus 3 days, could be a result of treating people for 5 or 10 days with the antiviral agent. In other words, it is “possible that clinicians were not discharging patients who otherwise met the criteria for hospital discharge until the remdesivir course was completed,” Dr. Ohl and colleagues note.

Not doing so, they add, could have resulted in “increased used of scarce hospital beds during the pandemic.”

“The recommended remdesivir treatment course is a somewhat arbitrary 5 or 10 days depending on illness severity, and remdesivir is currently available only as an intravenous formulation for use in health care settings,” they add.

This is the “most likely explanation,” notes Gio J. Baracco, MD, in an invited commentary accompanying the study.

At the time of the study, use of remdesivir also required patient consent, close adverse event monitoring, and ongoing testing, Dr. Baracco notes.

He added that an option to discharge patients earlier if they responded to treatment might have been lost in translation from clinical trial protocol to real-world use in the VA system.

While a large clinical trial protocol called for the remdesivir infusions to be stopped early if the patient met the primary outcome and was ready to be discharged, “this detail was not adequately translated to the clinicians treating these patients,” added Dr. Baracco, who’s with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and the Miami VA Healthcare System.
 

Conflicting evidence

Another large study, the World Health Organization Solidarity Trial, found remdesivir was not associated with shorter hospital stays or improved survival compared with standard of care. For this reason, the WHO recommends against use of remdesivir.

In contrast, the double-blind, randomized Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-1) linked remdesivir treatment to shorter stays in the hospital, a median 10 days versus 15 days in a placebo group.

The FDA included the 2020 ACTT-1 in its consideration for remdesivir emergency use authorization. The FDA issued the EUA in May 2020, followed by full approval as the first treatment indicated for COVID-19 in October.

ACTT-1 lead author John H. Beigel, MD, and colleagues also looked at the death rates for remdesivir versus placebo.

By day 15, the proportion of people who died was 6.7% in the remdesivir group versus 11%. By day 29, the rate was 11.4% among those who received the antiviral versus 15.2% among those who did not.

When asked why the VA and ACTT-1 studies yielded different results, Dr. Beigel cited two reasons. The timing was different, with the VA study starting after the remdesivir EUA was issued, and ACTT-1 findings were announced.

“So at that point, clinicians understood those populations most likely to benefit from remdesivir. The use of remdesivir likely did not occur at random; it was likely to be more commonly used in those who were sicker or at higher risk for poor outcomes,” said Dr. Beigel, associate director for clinical research in the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

In addition, the studies evaluated very different populations, he said. The differences in median duration of hospitalization between the trials reflects this, Dr. Beigel added.

Furthermore, when asked if he thinks the new evidence should affect clinical use of remdesivir, Dr. Beigel replied, “No. Observational studies, even with adjustments such as propensity score matching, are not equivalent levels of proof compared to randomized trials.”
 

Study details

Dr. Ohl and colleagues identified patients admitted to one of 123 VA hospitals for the first time for COVID-19 from May 1 to Oct. 8, 2020. Each had a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The researchers then compared 1,172 patients receiving remdesivir to another 1,172 patients not receiving the agent.

Those receiving remdesivir were more likely to be older, White, have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and have more severe COVID-19. A total 94% of the remdesivir group were men.

“Over 90% of the people included in VA study were men, mostly over the age of 60,” Dr. Ohl said when asked how generalizable the findings would be to a non-VA population.

“There is no obvious biological reason that remdesivir should have different effects in men and women, but we should be cautious about extrapolating study findings to women and younger individuals,” he added.

Limitations of the study include its observational design, which makes unadjusted confounding based on illness severity a possibility. In addition, the investigators were unable to identify specific subgroups that might benefit from remdesivir treatment.

The data did suggest that remdesivir was more effective earlier in the course of disease when patients required supplemental oxygen and before need for mechanical ventilation.

Dr. Baracco pointed out the contradictory findings in his commentary: “The real-life application of a drug promising to hasten discharge from the hospital as its primary beneficial outcome must include an assessment of how easy it is to do so and make it clear that once a patient reaches that point, they can discontinue the drug.”

“The paradoxical findings in the study by Dr. Ohl et al. compared with the study used for its authorization illustrate this point very clearly,” he adds.

Dr. Ohl reported receiving grants from Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development during the conduct of the study and consulting for Gilead Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Baracco reported receiving salary support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Beigel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A homeopathic doctor licensed in California was arrested July 14 and charged with a scheme to sell homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets and to falsify COVID-19 vaccination cards by making it appear that her customers had received the Moderna vaccine, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Juli A. Mazi, 41, of Napa, is charged with one count of wire fraud and one count of false statements related to health care matters. The case is the first federal criminal fraud prosecution related to homeoprophylaxis immunizations and fraudulent vaccination record cards, the DOJ said in a news release.

In April, according to federal authorities, an individual submitted a complaint to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, stating that family members had purchased the immunization pellets from Ms. Mazi. The complainant stated that the family members had told her/him that Ms. Mazi had said the pellets contained the COVID-19 virus and would create an antibody response in the immune system.

The affidavit noted that none of the family members had received injections of any of the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the Food and Drug Administration.

However, the complainant said, Ms. Mazi sent COVID-19 vaccination cards listing Moderna to the complainant family. Ms. Mazi allegedly instructed the family members to mark the cards to falsely state that they had received the Moderna vaccine on the date that they ingested the homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets.

She also allegedly provided instructions on how to fraudulently complete the cards to make it appear that a customer had received two doses of the Moderna vaccine. She even supplied Moderna lot numbers to enter on the cards.

In addition, Ms. Mazi allegedly offered homeoprophylaxis immunizations for childhood illnesses that she falsely claimed would satisfy the immunization requirements for California schools, and falsified immunization cards that were submitted by parents to California schools.

Ms. Mazi further stated that her customers could provide the pellets to children for COVID-19 immunity, and that “the dose is actually the same for babies,” the news release said.

Ms. Mazi is alleged to have falsely claimed that ingesting the pellets would result in full lifelong immunity from COVID-19. In addition, she exploited the disinformation and fear surrounding COVID-19 vaccination by falsely claiming that the FDA-authorized vaccines contain “toxic ingredients,” the DOJ said.
 

Homeopathic preparations

According to the DOJ, “Homeophrophylaxis involves the exposure of an individual to dilute amounts of a disease, purportedly to stimulate the immune system and confer immunity.”

According to Australia’s National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS), a private organization funded by the Australian and New South Wales governments, there is no high-quality research showing that homeopathic preparations are effective in preventing infectious disease.

Typical homeopathic preparations dilute a disease, tissue, or plant extract in water “to the point where none of the original material is contained within the preparation by the end of the process,” an NCIRS fact sheet says.

Referring to Ms. Mazi, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said in the news release, “This defendant allegedly defrauded and endangered the public by preying on fears and spreading misinformation about FDA-authorized vaccinations, while also peddling fake treatments that put people’s lives at risk.

“Even worse, the defendant allegedly created counterfeit COVID-19 vaccination cards and instructed her customers to falsely mark that they had received a vaccine, allowing them to circumvent efforts to contain the spread of the disease.”

The case against Ms. Mazi was brought in coordination with the DOJ Health Care Fraud Unit’s COVID-19 Interagency Working Group, which organizes efforts to address illegal activity involving health care programs during the pandemic.

The fraud unit leads the department’s Health Care Fraud Strike Force, which has existed since 2007. In May, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force in partnership with other government agencies to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A homeopathic doctor licensed in California was arrested July 14 and charged with a scheme to sell homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets and to falsify COVID-19 vaccination cards by making it appear that her customers had received the Moderna vaccine, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Juli A. Mazi, 41, of Napa, is charged with one count of wire fraud and one count of false statements related to health care matters. The case is the first federal criminal fraud prosecution related to homeoprophylaxis immunizations and fraudulent vaccination record cards, the DOJ said in a news release.

In April, according to federal authorities, an individual submitted a complaint to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, stating that family members had purchased the immunization pellets from Ms. Mazi. The complainant stated that the family members had told her/him that Ms. Mazi had said the pellets contained the COVID-19 virus and would create an antibody response in the immune system.

The affidavit noted that none of the family members had received injections of any of the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the Food and Drug Administration.

However, the complainant said, Ms. Mazi sent COVID-19 vaccination cards listing Moderna to the complainant family. Ms. Mazi allegedly instructed the family members to mark the cards to falsely state that they had received the Moderna vaccine on the date that they ingested the homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets.

She also allegedly provided instructions on how to fraudulently complete the cards to make it appear that a customer had received two doses of the Moderna vaccine. She even supplied Moderna lot numbers to enter on the cards.

In addition, Ms. Mazi allegedly offered homeoprophylaxis immunizations for childhood illnesses that she falsely claimed would satisfy the immunization requirements for California schools, and falsified immunization cards that were submitted by parents to California schools.

Ms. Mazi further stated that her customers could provide the pellets to children for COVID-19 immunity, and that “the dose is actually the same for babies,” the news release said.

Ms. Mazi is alleged to have falsely claimed that ingesting the pellets would result in full lifelong immunity from COVID-19. In addition, she exploited the disinformation and fear surrounding COVID-19 vaccination by falsely claiming that the FDA-authorized vaccines contain “toxic ingredients,” the DOJ said.
 

Homeopathic preparations

According to the DOJ, “Homeophrophylaxis involves the exposure of an individual to dilute amounts of a disease, purportedly to stimulate the immune system and confer immunity.”

According to Australia’s National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS), a private organization funded by the Australian and New South Wales governments, there is no high-quality research showing that homeopathic preparations are effective in preventing infectious disease.

Typical homeopathic preparations dilute a disease, tissue, or plant extract in water “to the point where none of the original material is contained within the preparation by the end of the process,” an NCIRS fact sheet says.

Referring to Ms. Mazi, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said in the news release, “This defendant allegedly defrauded and endangered the public by preying on fears and spreading misinformation about FDA-authorized vaccinations, while also peddling fake treatments that put people’s lives at risk.

“Even worse, the defendant allegedly created counterfeit COVID-19 vaccination cards and instructed her customers to falsely mark that they had received a vaccine, allowing them to circumvent efforts to contain the spread of the disease.”

The case against Ms. Mazi was brought in coordination with the DOJ Health Care Fraud Unit’s COVID-19 Interagency Working Group, which organizes efforts to address illegal activity involving health care programs during the pandemic.

The fraud unit leads the department’s Health Care Fraud Strike Force, which has existed since 2007. In May, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force in partnership with other government agencies to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A homeopathic doctor licensed in California was arrested July 14 and charged with a scheme to sell homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets and to falsify COVID-19 vaccination cards by making it appear that her customers had received the Moderna vaccine, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Juli A. Mazi, 41, of Napa, is charged with one count of wire fraud and one count of false statements related to health care matters. The case is the first federal criminal fraud prosecution related to homeoprophylaxis immunizations and fraudulent vaccination record cards, the DOJ said in a news release.

In April, according to federal authorities, an individual submitted a complaint to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, stating that family members had purchased the immunization pellets from Ms. Mazi. The complainant stated that the family members had told her/him that Ms. Mazi had said the pellets contained the COVID-19 virus and would create an antibody response in the immune system.

The affidavit noted that none of the family members had received injections of any of the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the Food and Drug Administration.

However, the complainant said, Ms. Mazi sent COVID-19 vaccination cards listing Moderna to the complainant family. Ms. Mazi allegedly instructed the family members to mark the cards to falsely state that they had received the Moderna vaccine on the date that they ingested the homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets.

She also allegedly provided instructions on how to fraudulently complete the cards to make it appear that a customer had received two doses of the Moderna vaccine. She even supplied Moderna lot numbers to enter on the cards.

In addition, Ms. Mazi allegedly offered homeoprophylaxis immunizations for childhood illnesses that she falsely claimed would satisfy the immunization requirements for California schools, and falsified immunization cards that were submitted by parents to California schools.

Ms. Mazi further stated that her customers could provide the pellets to children for COVID-19 immunity, and that “the dose is actually the same for babies,” the news release said.

Ms. Mazi is alleged to have falsely claimed that ingesting the pellets would result in full lifelong immunity from COVID-19. In addition, she exploited the disinformation and fear surrounding COVID-19 vaccination by falsely claiming that the FDA-authorized vaccines contain “toxic ingredients,” the DOJ said.
 

Homeopathic preparations

According to the DOJ, “Homeophrophylaxis involves the exposure of an individual to dilute amounts of a disease, purportedly to stimulate the immune system and confer immunity.”

According to Australia’s National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS), a private organization funded by the Australian and New South Wales governments, there is no high-quality research showing that homeopathic preparations are effective in preventing infectious disease.

Typical homeopathic preparations dilute a disease, tissue, or plant extract in water “to the point where none of the original material is contained within the preparation by the end of the process,” an NCIRS fact sheet says.

Referring to Ms. Mazi, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said in the news release, “This defendant allegedly defrauded and endangered the public by preying on fears and spreading misinformation about FDA-authorized vaccinations, while also peddling fake treatments that put people’s lives at risk.

“Even worse, the defendant allegedly created counterfeit COVID-19 vaccination cards and instructed her customers to falsely mark that they had received a vaccine, allowing them to circumvent efforts to contain the spread of the disease.”

The case against Ms. Mazi was brought in coordination with the DOJ Health Care Fraud Unit’s COVID-19 Interagency Working Group, which organizes efforts to address illegal activity involving health care programs during the pandemic.

The fraud unit leads the department’s Health Care Fraud Strike Force, which has existed since 2007. In May, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force in partnership with other government agencies to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients report lingering malnutrition, loss of appetite, and failure to regain lost weight long after other gastrointestinal and non-GI symptoms have resolved, according to the results of a new study.

In the large, multicenter retrospective study published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Anam Rizvi, MD, and colleagues at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, in New Hyde Park (N.Y.), report a high prevalence of GI symptoms among patients with COVID-19.

They followed 17,462 adult patients who were hospitalized for severe COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021. Of these, 3,229 (18.5%) also had GI symptoms.

The median age of the patients was 66 years, and 46.9% were women. The diverse population included White (46%), Black (23%), and Hispanic (17%) patients admitted to 12 medical centers of the Northwell Health System in Manhattan, Queens, Long Island, and Staten Island. The researchers followed patients for 3 months (88.7%) and 6 months (56.5%).

The most frequent initial GI symptoms were gastroenteritis (52.5%), malnutrition (23%), GI bleeding (20.4%), and idiopathic pancreatitis (0.5%). Notably, 50.6% of those with GI manifestations reported an inability to regain lost weight at 3 months; 32.4% reported failure to regain lost weight at 6 months.

These percentages rose among patients with malnutrition, as determined by a board-certified in-hospital nutritionist; 56.4% failed to gain weight at 6 months. A median 14.7-lb weight loss persisted at the half-year mark.

In contrast to these lingering symptoms, gastroenteritis, GI bleeding, and pancreatitis all resolved by 3 months post hospitalization.

“We were somewhat shocked that the prevalence of these symptoms was so high, but it’s overall reassuring that most GI symptoms of COVID-19 resolve,” study author Arvind J. Trindade, MD, told this news organization. “In some COVID patients, we’re seeing an inability to gain weight without diarrhea or postinfectious irritable bowel syndrome.

“Patients with an inability to regain weight should consider follow-up with a nutritionist,” continued Dr. Trindade, who is the center’s director of endoscopy and an associate professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, in Manhasset (N.Y.). His group also recommends developing malnutrition screening assessments for COVID-19 patients who recover from the acute infection.

The study was prompted by clinical observations during follow-up.

“We saw that a lot of these patients had trouble regaining weight, but we still don’t know why,” Dr. Trindade said. There were no discriminating clinical features apart from malnutrition that indicated an increased risk, and no socioeconomic or demographic characteristics. “We also looked at whether any factors predicted malnutrition, and there weren’t any that would predispose to malnutrition,” he added.

“We’re now reaching out to nonclinical investigators to see if there’s an interest in studying the underlying science behind these symptoms,” Dr. Trindade said.

His group plans to release 12-month follow-up data from the second wave of the pandemic in January 2022.

Initial GI symptoms are thought to be due to the virus’s S1 spike protein’s binding to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, which are abundant in GI epithelial cells. “But why patients have long-term GI sequelae is probably a whole different physiological mechanism,” Dr. Trindade said. “The thought is that there has to be some hormone or pathway that doesn’t allow them to regain weight.”

“The hospital cohort by [Dr. Rizvi] and colleagues is unique and helpful in that patients with GI symptoms are less likely to be hospitalized, and perhaps those patients who are sick enough for admission to the hospital who also have GI symptoms need specific attention paid to their appetite, weight, and nutritional status,” said Jordan M. Shapiro, MD, who commented on the study but was not involved in it.

The constellations of GI symptoms are difficult to distinguish from other postinfectious GI syndromes, such as irritable bowel syndrome and gastroparesis, added Dr. Shapiro, an assistant professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “We’re still unpacking what is and is not specific to post–COVID-19 GI symptoms. Prospective studies are necessary to further study this phenomenon.”

Last year, a small Italian study documented significant weight loss and malnutrition in a hospital cohort of 213 discharged COVID-19 patients. In that study, the duration of disease was predictive of weight loss.

The authors note several study limitations, including that the cohort was limited to hospitalized patients from New York and that the 6-month follow-up period was short.

The study received no funding. Dr. Trindade serves as a consultant to Pentax Medical. All other authors and Dr. Shapiro have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients report lingering malnutrition, loss of appetite, and failure to regain lost weight long after other gastrointestinal and non-GI symptoms have resolved, according to the results of a new study.

In the large, multicenter retrospective study published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Anam Rizvi, MD, and colleagues at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, in New Hyde Park (N.Y.), report a high prevalence of GI symptoms among patients with COVID-19.

They followed 17,462 adult patients who were hospitalized for severe COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021. Of these, 3,229 (18.5%) also had GI symptoms.

The median age of the patients was 66 years, and 46.9% were women. The diverse population included White (46%), Black (23%), and Hispanic (17%) patients admitted to 12 medical centers of the Northwell Health System in Manhattan, Queens, Long Island, and Staten Island. The researchers followed patients for 3 months (88.7%) and 6 months (56.5%).

The most frequent initial GI symptoms were gastroenteritis (52.5%), malnutrition (23%), GI bleeding (20.4%), and idiopathic pancreatitis (0.5%). Notably, 50.6% of those with GI manifestations reported an inability to regain lost weight at 3 months; 32.4% reported failure to regain lost weight at 6 months.

These percentages rose among patients with malnutrition, as determined by a board-certified in-hospital nutritionist; 56.4% failed to gain weight at 6 months. A median 14.7-lb weight loss persisted at the half-year mark.

In contrast to these lingering symptoms, gastroenteritis, GI bleeding, and pancreatitis all resolved by 3 months post hospitalization.

“We were somewhat shocked that the prevalence of these symptoms was so high, but it’s overall reassuring that most GI symptoms of COVID-19 resolve,” study author Arvind J. Trindade, MD, told this news organization. “In some COVID patients, we’re seeing an inability to gain weight without diarrhea or postinfectious irritable bowel syndrome.

“Patients with an inability to regain weight should consider follow-up with a nutritionist,” continued Dr. Trindade, who is the center’s director of endoscopy and an associate professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, in Manhasset (N.Y.). His group also recommends developing malnutrition screening assessments for COVID-19 patients who recover from the acute infection.

The study was prompted by clinical observations during follow-up.

“We saw that a lot of these patients had trouble regaining weight, but we still don’t know why,” Dr. Trindade said. There were no discriminating clinical features apart from malnutrition that indicated an increased risk, and no socioeconomic or demographic characteristics. “We also looked at whether any factors predicted malnutrition, and there weren’t any that would predispose to malnutrition,” he added.

“We’re now reaching out to nonclinical investigators to see if there’s an interest in studying the underlying science behind these symptoms,” Dr. Trindade said.

His group plans to release 12-month follow-up data from the second wave of the pandemic in January 2022.

Initial GI symptoms are thought to be due to the virus’s S1 spike protein’s binding to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, which are abundant in GI epithelial cells. “But why patients have long-term GI sequelae is probably a whole different physiological mechanism,” Dr. Trindade said. “The thought is that there has to be some hormone or pathway that doesn’t allow them to regain weight.”

“The hospital cohort by [Dr. Rizvi] and colleagues is unique and helpful in that patients with GI symptoms are less likely to be hospitalized, and perhaps those patients who are sick enough for admission to the hospital who also have GI symptoms need specific attention paid to their appetite, weight, and nutritional status,” said Jordan M. Shapiro, MD, who commented on the study but was not involved in it.

The constellations of GI symptoms are difficult to distinguish from other postinfectious GI syndromes, such as irritable bowel syndrome and gastroparesis, added Dr. Shapiro, an assistant professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “We’re still unpacking what is and is not specific to post–COVID-19 GI symptoms. Prospective studies are necessary to further study this phenomenon.”

Last year, a small Italian study documented significant weight loss and malnutrition in a hospital cohort of 213 discharged COVID-19 patients. In that study, the duration of disease was predictive of weight loss.

The authors note several study limitations, including that the cohort was limited to hospitalized patients from New York and that the 6-month follow-up period was short.

The study received no funding. Dr. Trindade serves as a consultant to Pentax Medical. All other authors and Dr. Shapiro have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients report lingering malnutrition, loss of appetite, and failure to regain lost weight long after other gastrointestinal and non-GI symptoms have resolved, according to the results of a new study.

In the large, multicenter retrospective study published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Anam Rizvi, MD, and colleagues at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, in New Hyde Park (N.Y.), report a high prevalence of GI symptoms among patients with COVID-19.

They followed 17,462 adult patients who were hospitalized for severe COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021. Of these, 3,229 (18.5%) also had GI symptoms.

The median age of the patients was 66 years, and 46.9% were women. The diverse population included White (46%), Black (23%), and Hispanic (17%) patients admitted to 12 medical centers of the Northwell Health System in Manhattan, Queens, Long Island, and Staten Island. The researchers followed patients for 3 months (88.7%) and 6 months (56.5%).

The most frequent initial GI symptoms were gastroenteritis (52.5%), malnutrition (23%), GI bleeding (20.4%), and idiopathic pancreatitis (0.5%). Notably, 50.6% of those with GI manifestations reported an inability to regain lost weight at 3 months; 32.4% reported failure to regain lost weight at 6 months.

These percentages rose among patients with malnutrition, as determined by a board-certified in-hospital nutritionist; 56.4% failed to gain weight at 6 months. A median 14.7-lb weight loss persisted at the half-year mark.

In contrast to these lingering symptoms, gastroenteritis, GI bleeding, and pancreatitis all resolved by 3 months post hospitalization.

“We were somewhat shocked that the prevalence of these symptoms was so high, but it’s overall reassuring that most GI symptoms of COVID-19 resolve,” study author Arvind J. Trindade, MD, told this news organization. “In some COVID patients, we’re seeing an inability to gain weight without diarrhea or postinfectious irritable bowel syndrome.

“Patients with an inability to regain weight should consider follow-up with a nutritionist,” continued Dr. Trindade, who is the center’s director of endoscopy and an associate professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, in Manhasset (N.Y.). His group also recommends developing malnutrition screening assessments for COVID-19 patients who recover from the acute infection.

The study was prompted by clinical observations during follow-up.

“We saw that a lot of these patients had trouble regaining weight, but we still don’t know why,” Dr. Trindade said. There were no discriminating clinical features apart from malnutrition that indicated an increased risk, and no socioeconomic or demographic characteristics. “We also looked at whether any factors predicted malnutrition, and there weren’t any that would predispose to malnutrition,” he added.

“We’re now reaching out to nonclinical investigators to see if there’s an interest in studying the underlying science behind these symptoms,” Dr. Trindade said.

His group plans to release 12-month follow-up data from the second wave of the pandemic in January 2022.

Initial GI symptoms are thought to be due to the virus’s S1 spike protein’s binding to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, which are abundant in GI epithelial cells. “But why patients have long-term GI sequelae is probably a whole different physiological mechanism,” Dr. Trindade said. “The thought is that there has to be some hormone or pathway that doesn’t allow them to regain weight.”

“The hospital cohort by [Dr. Rizvi] and colleagues is unique and helpful in that patients with GI symptoms are less likely to be hospitalized, and perhaps those patients who are sick enough for admission to the hospital who also have GI symptoms need specific attention paid to their appetite, weight, and nutritional status,” said Jordan M. Shapiro, MD, who commented on the study but was not involved in it.

The constellations of GI symptoms are difficult to distinguish from other postinfectious GI syndromes, such as irritable bowel syndrome and gastroparesis, added Dr. Shapiro, an assistant professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “We’re still unpacking what is and is not specific to post–COVID-19 GI symptoms. Prospective studies are necessary to further study this phenomenon.”

Last year, a small Italian study documented significant weight loss and malnutrition in a hospital cohort of 213 discharged COVID-19 patients. In that study, the duration of disease was predictive of weight loss.

The authors note several study limitations, including that the cohort was limited to hospitalized patients from New York and that the 6-month follow-up period was short.

The study received no funding. Dr. Trindade serves as a consultant to Pentax Medical. All other authors and Dr. Shapiro have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Following a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferable to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients who are candidates for oral anticoagulants, according to data drawn from a large multicenter French TAVR registry.

When oral anticoagulation is appropriate following TAVR, such as in patients with atrial fibrillation, “DOACs are associated with improved survival and lower incidence of bleeding, compared to VKA,” reported a team of investigators led by Martine Gilard, MD, PhD, director of interventional cardiology, Brest (France) University Hospital Center.

The comparison, using propensity score matching, is not definitive, but it might be the best data currently available to support DOACs over VKA until a randomized trial is completed, according to Dr. Gilard, senior author of the newly published study.

Asked in an interview if DOACs should now be used preferentially after TAVR when patients are indicated for oral anticoagulation, Dr. Gilard replied, “My answer is yes.”

Of more than 24,000 TAVR patients in the French TAVI and FRANCE2 multicenter registries, which are linked to the French single-payer claims database (SNDS), 8,962 (36.4%) received an oral anticoagulant following their procedure. Of these, 2,180 (24.3%) received a DOAC and the remaining received VKA.

By linking data from the registries to the SNDS, outcomes were tracked. Propensity matching was employed to control for differences in baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index, functional class, diabetes, comorbidities, and past medical history.

On the primary endpoint of mortality at the end of 3 years, the rates were 35.6% and 31.2% for VKA and DOACs, respectively. This translated in a 37% greater hazard ratio for death among those treated with VKA (P < .005).

The rate of major bleeding, a secondary endpoint, was also higher (12.3% vs. 8.4%) and significantly different (HR, 1.65; P < .005) for VKA versus DOACs. The rates of ischemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and hemorrhagic stroke were all numerically higher in patients treated with VKA than DOACs, although none of these differences reached statistical significance.
 

Residual confounding cannot be discounted

“The large number of events allowed for taking into account a higher number of potential confounders with appropriate statistical power,” according to the authors. However, they acknowledged that residual confounding cannot be eliminated by propensity matching and conceded that prospective data are needed for a definitive comparison.

In an accompanying editorial, Daniele Giacoppo, MD, a cardiologist at Alto Vicentino Hospital, Santorso, Italy, enlarged on this point . In addition to the inherent limitations of retrospective data, he also noted that data from other studies addressing the same question have been inconsistent.

Of these studies, he pointed to the ATLANTIS trial, presented 2 months ago at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. This study failed to show an advantage for the DOAC apixaban over VKA in TAVR patients for the primary composite outcome of time to death, myocardial infarction, systemic emboli, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. Although this study was not limited to patients with an indication for oral anticoagulants, Dr. Giacoppo pointed out that there was no advantage, even among the subgroup of patients who did have an indication.
 

Data are supportive in absence of trial results

In general, Dr. Giacoppo agreed that the French registry are generally supportive of DOACs over VKA in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he cautioned that blanket statements are difficult. He anticipates better information from a randomized trial called ENVISAGE-TAVI AF, which is comparing edoxaban with VKA following TAVR in atrial fibrillation patients who have an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he indicated that some individualization of choice will be needed among those high or low relative risks of thrombotic events or bleeding.

“The concerns related to DOACs after TAVR are most confined to patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation,” Dr. Giacoppo said in an interview. In patients with an indication, “oral anticoagulation alone without antithrombotic therapy significantly reduced the risk of bleeding” in several studies, he added, citing in particular the POPular TAVI trial.

Issues about when to employ – or not employ – both oral anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapy based on such factors as bleeding risk remain unresolved, but “in aggregate, waiting for additional high-quality data, the use of a DOAC in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation who underwent TAVR seems to be safe,” Dr. Giacoppo said. He thinks that the “higher predictability of DOACS compared to vitamin K antagonists might translate into lower bleeding rates over time in a real-world, unselected population.”
 

Benefit-to-risk ratio requires attention

A similar concern about balancing risks and benefits of oral anticoagulation in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation was emphasized by Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, MedStar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center.

“The TAVR population is elderly in general and so are at high risk for bleeding with any additional anticoagulation,” Dr. Waksman said. He cited data that bring into question the utility of using a DOAC in TAVR patients without an additional indication for anticoagulation, but he believes DOACs do make sense in those who were on and had an indication for a DOAC even before TAVR.

Patients who had atrial fibrillation or another indication “should continue to take the DOAC after TAVR. This population can be assumed to have less bleeding risk as they are vetted as safe for DOACs before their TAVR procedure,” he said.

Although mortality was the primary endpoint of the French registry evaluation, it is the bleeding risk that is a dominant concern, according to Romain Didier, MD, PhD, the first author of this study who performed this work in collaboration with Dr. Gilard.

“We really believe that VKA use in real life after TAVR, even with INR monitoring, is associated with a higher risk of bleeding as compared to DOACs,” he said. It is for this reason that “we currently use DOACs as a first choice in patients who require anticoagulant after TAVR.”

Dr. Gilard, Dr. Didier, and Dr. Giacoppo reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waksman reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, MedAlliance, Medtronic, and Pi-Cardia.

Following a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferable to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients who are candidates for oral anticoagulants, according to data drawn from a large multicenter French TAVR registry.

When oral anticoagulation is appropriate following TAVR, such as in patients with atrial fibrillation, “DOACs are associated with improved survival and lower incidence of bleeding, compared to VKA,” reported a team of investigators led by Martine Gilard, MD, PhD, director of interventional cardiology, Brest (France) University Hospital Center.

The comparison, using propensity score matching, is not definitive, but it might be the best data currently available to support DOACs over VKA until a randomized trial is completed, according to Dr. Gilard, senior author of the newly published study.

Asked in an interview if DOACs should now be used preferentially after TAVR when patients are indicated for oral anticoagulation, Dr. Gilard replied, “My answer is yes.”

Of more than 24,000 TAVR patients in the French TAVI and FRANCE2 multicenter registries, which are linked to the French single-payer claims database (SNDS), 8,962 (36.4%) received an oral anticoagulant following their procedure. Of these, 2,180 (24.3%) received a DOAC and the remaining received VKA.

By linking data from the registries to the SNDS, outcomes were tracked. Propensity matching was employed to control for differences in baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index, functional class, diabetes, comorbidities, and past medical history.

On the primary endpoint of mortality at the end of 3 years, the rates were 35.6% and 31.2% for VKA and DOACs, respectively. This translated in a 37% greater hazard ratio for death among those treated with VKA (P < .005).

The rate of major bleeding, a secondary endpoint, was also higher (12.3% vs. 8.4%) and significantly different (HR, 1.65; P < .005) for VKA versus DOACs. The rates of ischemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and hemorrhagic stroke were all numerically higher in patients treated with VKA than DOACs, although none of these differences reached statistical significance.
 

Residual confounding cannot be discounted

“The large number of events allowed for taking into account a higher number of potential confounders with appropriate statistical power,” according to the authors. However, they acknowledged that residual confounding cannot be eliminated by propensity matching and conceded that prospective data are needed for a definitive comparison.

In an accompanying editorial, Daniele Giacoppo, MD, a cardiologist at Alto Vicentino Hospital, Santorso, Italy, enlarged on this point . In addition to the inherent limitations of retrospective data, he also noted that data from other studies addressing the same question have been inconsistent.

Of these studies, he pointed to the ATLANTIS trial, presented 2 months ago at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. This study failed to show an advantage for the DOAC apixaban over VKA in TAVR patients for the primary composite outcome of time to death, myocardial infarction, systemic emboli, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. Although this study was not limited to patients with an indication for oral anticoagulants, Dr. Giacoppo pointed out that there was no advantage, even among the subgroup of patients who did have an indication.
 

Data are supportive in absence of trial results

In general, Dr. Giacoppo agreed that the French registry are generally supportive of DOACs over VKA in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he cautioned that blanket statements are difficult. He anticipates better information from a randomized trial called ENVISAGE-TAVI AF, which is comparing edoxaban with VKA following TAVR in atrial fibrillation patients who have an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he indicated that some individualization of choice will be needed among those high or low relative risks of thrombotic events or bleeding.

“The concerns related to DOACs after TAVR are most confined to patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation,” Dr. Giacoppo said in an interview. In patients with an indication, “oral anticoagulation alone without antithrombotic therapy significantly reduced the risk of bleeding” in several studies, he added, citing in particular the POPular TAVI trial.

Issues about when to employ – or not employ – both oral anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapy based on such factors as bleeding risk remain unresolved, but “in aggregate, waiting for additional high-quality data, the use of a DOAC in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation who underwent TAVR seems to be safe,” Dr. Giacoppo said. He thinks that the “higher predictability of DOACS compared to vitamin K antagonists might translate into lower bleeding rates over time in a real-world, unselected population.”
 

Benefit-to-risk ratio requires attention

A similar concern about balancing risks and benefits of oral anticoagulation in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation was emphasized by Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, MedStar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center.

“The TAVR population is elderly in general and so are at high risk for bleeding with any additional anticoagulation,” Dr. Waksman said. He cited data that bring into question the utility of using a DOAC in TAVR patients without an additional indication for anticoagulation, but he believes DOACs do make sense in those who were on and had an indication for a DOAC even before TAVR.

Patients who had atrial fibrillation or another indication “should continue to take the DOAC after TAVR. This population can be assumed to have less bleeding risk as they are vetted as safe for DOACs before their TAVR procedure,” he said.

Although mortality was the primary endpoint of the French registry evaluation, it is the bleeding risk that is a dominant concern, according to Romain Didier, MD, PhD, the first author of this study who performed this work in collaboration with Dr. Gilard.

“We really believe that VKA use in real life after TAVR, even with INR monitoring, is associated with a higher risk of bleeding as compared to DOACs,” he said. It is for this reason that “we currently use DOACs as a first choice in patients who require anticoagulant after TAVR.”

Dr. Gilard, Dr. Didier, and Dr. Giacoppo reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waksman reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, MedAlliance, Medtronic, and Pi-Cardia.

Following a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferable to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients who are candidates for oral anticoagulants, according to data drawn from a large multicenter French TAVR registry.

When oral anticoagulation is appropriate following TAVR, such as in patients with atrial fibrillation, “DOACs are associated with improved survival and lower incidence of bleeding, compared to VKA,” reported a team of investigators led by Martine Gilard, MD, PhD, director of interventional cardiology, Brest (France) University Hospital Center.

The comparison, using propensity score matching, is not definitive, but it might be the best data currently available to support DOACs over VKA until a randomized trial is completed, according to Dr. Gilard, senior author of the newly published study.

Asked in an interview if DOACs should now be used preferentially after TAVR when patients are indicated for oral anticoagulation, Dr. Gilard replied, “My answer is yes.”

Of more than 24,000 TAVR patients in the French TAVI and FRANCE2 multicenter registries, which are linked to the French single-payer claims database (SNDS), 8,962 (36.4%) received an oral anticoagulant following their procedure. Of these, 2,180 (24.3%) received a DOAC and the remaining received VKA.

By linking data from the registries to the SNDS, outcomes were tracked. Propensity matching was employed to control for differences in baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index, functional class, diabetes, comorbidities, and past medical history.

On the primary endpoint of mortality at the end of 3 years, the rates were 35.6% and 31.2% for VKA and DOACs, respectively. This translated in a 37% greater hazard ratio for death among those treated with VKA (P < .005).

The rate of major bleeding, a secondary endpoint, was also higher (12.3% vs. 8.4%) and significantly different (HR, 1.65; P < .005) for VKA versus DOACs. The rates of ischemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and hemorrhagic stroke were all numerically higher in patients treated with VKA than DOACs, although none of these differences reached statistical significance.
 

Residual confounding cannot be discounted

“The large number of events allowed for taking into account a higher number of potential confounders with appropriate statistical power,” according to the authors. However, they acknowledged that residual confounding cannot be eliminated by propensity matching and conceded that prospective data are needed for a definitive comparison.

In an accompanying editorial, Daniele Giacoppo, MD, a cardiologist at Alto Vicentino Hospital, Santorso, Italy, enlarged on this point . In addition to the inherent limitations of retrospective data, he also noted that data from other studies addressing the same question have been inconsistent.

Of these studies, he pointed to the ATLANTIS trial, presented 2 months ago at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. This study failed to show an advantage for the DOAC apixaban over VKA in TAVR patients for the primary composite outcome of time to death, myocardial infarction, systemic emboli, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. Although this study was not limited to patients with an indication for oral anticoagulants, Dr. Giacoppo pointed out that there was no advantage, even among the subgroup of patients who did have an indication.
 

Data are supportive in absence of trial results

In general, Dr. Giacoppo agreed that the French registry are generally supportive of DOACs over VKA in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he cautioned that blanket statements are difficult. He anticipates better information from a randomized trial called ENVISAGE-TAVI AF, which is comparing edoxaban with VKA following TAVR in atrial fibrillation patients who have an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he indicated that some individualization of choice will be needed among those high or low relative risks of thrombotic events or bleeding.

“The concerns related to DOACs after TAVR are most confined to patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation,” Dr. Giacoppo said in an interview. In patients with an indication, “oral anticoagulation alone without antithrombotic therapy significantly reduced the risk of bleeding” in several studies, he added, citing in particular the POPular TAVI trial.

Issues about when to employ – or not employ – both oral anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapy based on such factors as bleeding risk remain unresolved, but “in aggregate, waiting for additional high-quality data, the use of a DOAC in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation who underwent TAVR seems to be safe,” Dr. Giacoppo said. He thinks that the “higher predictability of DOACS compared to vitamin K antagonists might translate into lower bleeding rates over time in a real-world, unselected population.”
 

Benefit-to-risk ratio requires attention

A similar concern about balancing risks and benefits of oral anticoagulation in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation was emphasized by Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, MedStar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center.

“The TAVR population is elderly in general and so are at high risk for bleeding with any additional anticoagulation,” Dr. Waksman said. He cited data that bring into question the utility of using a DOAC in TAVR patients without an additional indication for anticoagulation, but he believes DOACs do make sense in those who were on and had an indication for a DOAC even before TAVR.

Patients who had atrial fibrillation or another indication “should continue to take the DOAC after TAVR. This population can be assumed to have less bleeding risk as they are vetted as safe for DOACs before their TAVR procedure,” he said.

Although mortality was the primary endpoint of the French registry evaluation, it is the bleeding risk that is a dominant concern, according to Romain Didier, MD, PhD, the first author of this study who performed this work in collaboration with Dr. Gilard.

“We really believe that VKA use in real life after TAVR, even with INR monitoring, is associated with a higher risk of bleeding as compared to DOACs,” he said. It is for this reason that “we currently use DOACs as a first choice in patients who require anticoagulant after TAVR.”

Dr. Gilard, Dr. Didier, and Dr. Giacoppo reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waksman reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, MedAlliance, Medtronic, and Pi-Cardia.

Should a hospital or medical practice fulfill a patient’s request to be treated or cared for only by vaccinated health care providers?The answer is yes, in a perfect world. Patients should feel assured that their health care providers – clinicians and caregivers – are not exposing them to infectious diseases.But issues are being raised – subquestions that need to be answered to understand the current situation and assist health care employers in their decision-making:

• Must health care employers ensure that their employees are vaccinated?
• Can health care employers require that their employees be vaccinated?
• Do employees have any rights to refuse vaccination or to refuse to supply their employer with their vaccination status?
• Can a health care employer terminate an employee who refuses vaccination?
• Does a patient have a legal right to a vaccinated health care provider?

At present, federal policy says that employers may, but are not required to, insist that employees be vaccinated. The currently prevailing state case law says that hospitals and other employers can require staff to be vaccinated and can terminate employees who refuse vaccination. In June, a Texas court dismissed a case in which 117 employees sued a hospital for requiring that employees be vaccinated. More cases are pending in other states, and there may be differing decisions in other states and on appeal.

State laws enacted years ago also weigh in on employer obligations. In at least one state, Oregon, employers of health care providers may not require vaccination, even though other employers may. Other states have laws about what an employer may or may not require of an employee regarding vaccination, and some have introduced laws which are pending.

So, in most states, health care employers may, not must, require that employees be vaccinated. In most states, hospitals and medical practices may terminate employees who refuse vaccination. However, employers should research the laws of their own states before requiring vaccinations and before terminating employees who are not vaccinated.

The issue of employer mandates is complicated further by the practicality that, in some areas of the country, health care providers are in scarce supply. Employers don’t want to lose the providers they have.

And there are additional questions about how certain federal laws affect the situation. Federal law that may apply includes:

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation on approval of vaccines
• The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
• The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which protects sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent
• Civil rights laws
• Patients’ rights

FDA. Some health care providers who refuse vaccination argue that employers have no legal right to require a vaccine that is not fully approved by the FDA. COVID-19 vaccinations have emergency use authorization – something less than full approval. Courts have not yet ruled on this issue.

ADA. Some attorneys believe that honoring a patient’s request to be attended only by a vaccinated health care provider can implicate the ADA. However, the ADA doesn’t protect healthy individuals who don’t want to be vaccinated. The ADA protects the person who, because of their disability, shouldn’t get the vaccination. If an employer mandates vaccination, the employer must, under the ADA, consider requests for exemptions from disabled individuals. However, even when an employee has a disability that may qualify the employee for an exemption to the vaccination requirement, an employer may argue that giving an exemption would be a direct threat to the safety of others; in that case, the ADA may require that the disabled employee and hospital work something out. A compromise might be that the unvaccinated disabled individual would not provide direct patient care or would wear a mask and maintain physical distance.

HIPAA. Some argue that federal privacy law enters into the discussion, maintaining that health care employers can’t disclose employees’ vaccination status under HIPAA. That is not true. Employers are not “covered entities” under HIPAA. It is health care providers who are precluded under HIPAA from disclosing a patient’s personal information. So, if an employer were to ask an employee’s health care provider about the employee’s vaccination status, the health care provider could disclose that status only if the employee consented to the disclosure. An employer may ask an employee for the employee’s proof of vaccination card. However, employers must not ask for unnecessary details that might reveal disability information protected by the ADA.

Civil rights law. Civil rights laws may protect certain individuals from employment consequences of refusing vaccination. Specifically, individuals with sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations are protected from retaliation by employers for refusing vaccination, under the Constitutional right of freedom of religion. The individual without sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations and without a relevant disability doesn’t have legal remedies under civil rights laws.

Civil rights laws may apply if employers don’t apply their vaccination requirements to all employees equally. That is, employers can’t require vaccinations of some employees but not others.

Patients’ rights. Legal protections for patients who want a vaccinated health care provider are nowhere to be seen, at this time. It is unlikely that a single patient will be able to convince a hospital or medical practice to require that its staff be vaccinated. However, if a patient becomes infected with COVID-19 and can prove that the illness is causally related to interacting with an unvaccinated health care worker, the patient may have a case against the employer. The legal theory would be malpractice or negligence under informed consent law: That is, the patient did not consent to be treated by an unvaccinated person.
 

Employer options

So, what can health care employers do? They have three options:

• Require vaccination of all employees, independent contractors, and other providers who have privileges to see patients. Then, as long as the employer enforces the vaccination mandate, the employer can tell patients that all providers are vaccinated.
• Not require that employees and others with access to patients be vaccinated, and if a patient requests to be seen only by vaccinated providers, provide that patient with a vaccinated provider. It is especially important that health care employers take care with patients who are unvaccinated and who have been advised not to be vaccinated because of a medical condition. Both the patient and the health care employer would be protected best by avoiding having two unvaccinated individuals interact. Masks and physical distancing may decrease the risk.
• Not require that employees be vaccinated and refuse to guarantee that providers are vaccinated. To avoid risk for future lawsuits, employers should inform patients that there is no assurance that providers are vaccinated. That leaves it to each patient to ask individual providers about the provider’s vaccination status. If a patient doesn’t like a provider’s answer, then the patient has the right to leave. It’s not clear that the patient has a legal right to stay and demand a vaccinated provider.

Option three is problematic for a number of reasons. Patients aren’t always in a position to query each provider who enters the room about vaccination status. Patients may be sedated or too ill to exert that effort. And it puts supervisors in the position of having to mediate situations where a patient wants to leave against medical advice but the option of staying may also be dangerous.

Health care employers should discuss the options with their legal counsel before deciding which option to adopt.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Should a hospital or medical practice fulfill a patient’s request to be treated or cared for only by vaccinated health care providers?The answer is yes, in a perfect world. Patients should feel assured that their health care providers – clinicians and caregivers – are not exposing them to infectious diseases.But issues are being raised – subquestions that need to be answered to understand the current situation and assist health care employers in their decision-making:

• Must health care employers ensure that their employees are vaccinated?
• Can health care employers require that their employees be vaccinated?
• Do employees have any rights to refuse vaccination or to refuse to supply their employer with their vaccination status?
• Can a health care employer terminate an employee who refuses vaccination?
• Does a patient have a legal right to a vaccinated health care provider?

At present, federal policy says that employers may, but are not required to, insist that employees be vaccinated. The currently prevailing state case law says that hospitals and other employers can require staff to be vaccinated and can terminate employees who refuse vaccination. In June, a Texas court dismissed a case in which 117 employees sued a hospital for requiring that employees be vaccinated. More cases are pending in other states, and there may be differing decisions in other states and on appeal.

State laws enacted years ago also weigh in on employer obligations. In at least one state, Oregon, employers of health care providers may not require vaccination, even though other employers may. Other states have laws about what an employer may or may not require of an employee regarding vaccination, and some have introduced laws which are pending.

So, in most states, health care employers may, not must, require that employees be vaccinated. In most states, hospitals and medical practices may terminate employees who refuse vaccination. However, employers should research the laws of their own states before requiring vaccinations and before terminating employees who are not vaccinated.

The issue of employer mandates is complicated further by the practicality that, in some areas of the country, health care providers are in scarce supply. Employers don’t want to lose the providers they have.

And there are additional questions about how certain federal laws affect the situation. Federal law that may apply includes:

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation on approval of vaccines
• The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
• The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which protects sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent
• Civil rights laws
• Patients’ rights

FDA. Some health care providers who refuse vaccination argue that employers have no legal right to require a vaccine that is not fully approved by the FDA. COVID-19 vaccinations have emergency use authorization – something less than full approval. Courts have not yet ruled on this issue.

ADA. Some attorneys believe that honoring a patient’s request to be attended only by a vaccinated health care provider can implicate the ADA. However, the ADA doesn’t protect healthy individuals who don’t want to be vaccinated. The ADA protects the person who, because of their disability, shouldn’t get the vaccination. If an employer mandates vaccination, the employer must, under the ADA, consider requests for exemptions from disabled individuals. However, even when an employee has a disability that may qualify the employee for an exemption to the vaccination requirement, an employer may argue that giving an exemption would be a direct threat to the safety of others; in that case, the ADA may require that the disabled employee and hospital work something out. A compromise might be that the unvaccinated disabled individual would not provide direct patient care or would wear a mask and maintain physical distance.

HIPAA. Some argue that federal privacy law enters into the discussion, maintaining that health care employers can’t disclose employees’ vaccination status under HIPAA. That is not true. Employers are not “covered entities” under HIPAA. It is health care providers who are precluded under HIPAA from disclosing a patient’s personal information. So, if an employer were to ask an employee’s health care provider about the employee’s vaccination status, the health care provider could disclose that status only if the employee consented to the disclosure. An employer may ask an employee for the employee’s proof of vaccination card. However, employers must not ask for unnecessary details that might reveal disability information protected by the ADA.

Civil rights law. Civil rights laws may protect certain individuals from employment consequences of refusing vaccination. Specifically, individuals with sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations are protected from retaliation by employers for refusing vaccination, under the Constitutional right of freedom of religion. The individual without sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations and without a relevant disability doesn’t have legal remedies under civil rights laws.

Civil rights laws may apply if employers don’t apply their vaccination requirements to all employees equally. That is, employers can’t require vaccinations of some employees but not others.

Patients’ rights. Legal protections for patients who want a vaccinated health care provider are nowhere to be seen, at this time. It is unlikely that a single patient will be able to convince a hospital or medical practice to require that its staff be vaccinated. However, if a patient becomes infected with COVID-19 and can prove that the illness is causally related to interacting with an unvaccinated health care worker, the patient may have a case against the employer. The legal theory would be malpractice or negligence under informed consent law: That is, the patient did not consent to be treated by an unvaccinated person.
 

Employer options

So, what can health care employers do? They have three options:

• Require vaccination of all employees, independent contractors, and other providers who have privileges to see patients. Then, as long as the employer enforces the vaccination mandate, the employer can tell patients that all providers are vaccinated.
• Not require that employees and others with access to patients be vaccinated, and if a patient requests to be seen only by vaccinated providers, provide that patient with a vaccinated provider. It is especially important that health care employers take care with patients who are unvaccinated and who have been advised not to be vaccinated because of a medical condition. Both the patient and the health care employer would be protected best by avoiding having two unvaccinated individuals interact. Masks and physical distancing may decrease the risk.
• Not require that employees be vaccinated and refuse to guarantee that providers are vaccinated. To avoid risk for future lawsuits, employers should inform patients that there is no assurance that providers are vaccinated. That leaves it to each patient to ask individual providers about the provider’s vaccination status. If a patient doesn’t like a provider’s answer, then the patient has the right to leave. It’s not clear that the patient has a legal right to stay and demand a vaccinated provider.

Option three is problematic for a number of reasons. Patients aren’t always in a position to query each provider who enters the room about vaccination status. Patients may be sedated or too ill to exert that effort. And it puts supervisors in the position of having to mediate situations where a patient wants to leave against medical advice but the option of staying may also be dangerous.

Health care employers should discuss the options with their legal counsel before deciding which option to adopt.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Should a hospital or medical practice fulfill a patient’s request to be treated or cared for only by vaccinated health care providers?The answer is yes, in a perfect world. Patients should feel assured that their health care providers – clinicians and caregivers – are not exposing them to infectious diseases.But issues are being raised – subquestions that need to be answered to understand the current situation and assist health care employers in their decision-making:

• Must health care employers ensure that their employees are vaccinated?
• Can health care employers require that their employees be vaccinated?
• Do employees have any rights to refuse vaccination or to refuse to supply their employer with their vaccination status?
• Can a health care employer terminate an employee who refuses vaccination?
• Does a patient have a legal right to a vaccinated health care provider?

At present, federal policy says that employers may, but are not required to, insist that employees be vaccinated. The currently prevailing state case law says that hospitals and other employers can require staff to be vaccinated and can terminate employees who refuse vaccination. In June, a Texas court dismissed a case in which 117 employees sued a hospital for requiring that employees be vaccinated. More cases are pending in other states, and there may be differing decisions in other states and on appeal.

State laws enacted years ago also weigh in on employer obligations. In at least one state, Oregon, employers of health care providers may not require vaccination, even though other employers may. Other states have laws about what an employer may or may not require of an employee regarding vaccination, and some have introduced laws which are pending.

So, in most states, health care employers may, not must, require that employees be vaccinated. In most states, hospitals and medical practices may terminate employees who refuse vaccination. However, employers should research the laws of their own states before requiring vaccinations and before terminating employees who are not vaccinated.

The issue of employer mandates is complicated further by the practicality that, in some areas of the country, health care providers are in scarce supply. Employers don’t want to lose the providers they have.

And there are additional questions about how certain federal laws affect the situation. Federal law that may apply includes:

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation on approval of vaccines
• The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
• The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which protects sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent
• Civil rights laws
• Patients’ rights

FDA. Some health care providers who refuse vaccination argue that employers have no legal right to require a vaccine that is not fully approved by the FDA. COVID-19 vaccinations have emergency use authorization – something less than full approval. Courts have not yet ruled on this issue.

ADA. Some attorneys believe that honoring a patient’s request to be attended only by a vaccinated health care provider can implicate the ADA. However, the ADA doesn’t protect healthy individuals who don’t want to be vaccinated. The ADA protects the person who, because of their disability, shouldn’t get the vaccination. If an employer mandates vaccination, the employer must, under the ADA, consider requests for exemptions from disabled individuals. However, even when an employee has a disability that may qualify the employee for an exemption to the vaccination requirement, an employer may argue that giving an exemption would be a direct threat to the safety of others; in that case, the ADA may require that the disabled employee and hospital work something out. A compromise might be that the unvaccinated disabled individual would not provide direct patient care or would wear a mask and maintain physical distance.

HIPAA. Some argue that federal privacy law enters into the discussion, maintaining that health care employers can’t disclose employees’ vaccination status under HIPAA. That is not true. Employers are not “covered entities” under HIPAA. It is health care providers who are precluded under HIPAA from disclosing a patient’s personal information. So, if an employer were to ask an employee’s health care provider about the employee’s vaccination status, the health care provider could disclose that status only if the employee consented to the disclosure. An employer may ask an employee for the employee’s proof of vaccination card. However, employers must not ask for unnecessary details that might reveal disability information protected by the ADA.

Civil rights law. Civil rights laws may protect certain individuals from employment consequences of refusing vaccination. Specifically, individuals with sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations are protected from retaliation by employers for refusing vaccination, under the Constitutional right of freedom of religion. The individual without sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations and without a relevant disability doesn’t have legal remedies under civil rights laws.

Civil rights laws may apply if employers don’t apply their vaccination requirements to all employees equally. That is, employers can’t require vaccinations of some employees but not others.

Patients’ rights. Legal protections for patients who want a vaccinated health care provider are nowhere to be seen, at this time. It is unlikely that a single patient will be able to convince a hospital or medical practice to require that its staff be vaccinated. However, if a patient becomes infected with COVID-19 and can prove that the illness is causally related to interacting with an unvaccinated health care worker, the patient may have a case against the employer. The legal theory would be malpractice or negligence under informed consent law: That is, the patient did not consent to be treated by an unvaccinated person.
 

Employer options

So, what can health care employers do? They have three options:

• Require vaccination of all employees, independent contractors, and other providers who have privileges to see patients. Then, as long as the employer enforces the vaccination mandate, the employer can tell patients that all providers are vaccinated.
• Not require that employees and others with access to patients be vaccinated, and if a patient requests to be seen only by vaccinated providers, provide that patient with a vaccinated provider. It is especially important that health care employers take care with patients who are unvaccinated and who have been advised not to be vaccinated because of a medical condition. Both the patient and the health care employer would be protected best by avoiding having two unvaccinated individuals interact. Masks and physical distancing may decrease the risk.
• Not require that employees be vaccinated and refuse to guarantee that providers are vaccinated. To avoid risk for future lawsuits, employers should inform patients that there is no assurance that providers are vaccinated. That leaves it to each patient to ask individual providers about the provider’s vaccination status. If a patient doesn’t like a provider’s answer, then the patient has the right to leave. It’s not clear that the patient has a legal right to stay and demand a vaccinated provider.

Option three is problematic for a number of reasons. Patients aren’t always in a position to query each provider who enters the room about vaccination status. Patients may be sedated or too ill to exert that effort. And it puts supervisors in the position of having to mediate situations where a patient wants to leave against medical advice but the option of staying may also be dangerous.

Health care employers should discuss the options with their legal counsel before deciding which option to adopt.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I receive updates and stories every day from rheumatologists and their offices regarding the egregious behavior of various health care entities that profit off patients and harm them in the process. If you know me, you know I’m willing to tell and retell horror stories of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), especially of how they construct formularies for the most profit, again, harming patients in the process. It’s critical to serve as a voice to counter the PBM trade group, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, which continues to extol how PBMs are essentially saving our country billions ... one restrictive formulary at a time.

It does seem that we are constantly fighting against something:

• Patients arbitrarily being switched to completely different medications to “save” money. These “savings” are pocketed by the middlemen, not the patients or the employers paying for the coverage.
• Copay cards for medications that have no lower-cost alternative. These fill the coffers of the health plans without patients getting credit toward their deductible.
• Mandating that patients move from receiving their infusions under the watchful eye of their rheumatologist’s office to home infusion. This has been shown to be more dangerous for our patients.
• Wasting hours on prior authorization paperwork for needed medication. We know that these are nearly always approved, and thereby delay treatment unnecessarily.

By now you might wonder: “Where is the good news?” In spite of the daily barrage of battles that come our way, rheumatologists continue to do good and improve the lives of our patients. I would go as far as to say that we are prospering in spite of the challenges. Why? Because every day there are wins. Seeing that smile for the first time on the face of a patient who finally has answers and a treatment plan for their newly diagnosed RA. Walking out of the exam room and having patients and their parents give you a hug. Helping a dad be able to walk his daughter down the aisle with ease. On the clinical front, I don’t have to tell you: We score wins every single day.

There is good news on the advocacy side, too. In my own state of Louisiana, this legislative session, we passed a number of bills that are beneficial to our patients, including a bill to stop the aforementioned attacks on copay assistance by state regulated payers. We even blocked one that the Rheumatology Alliance of Louisiana felt would be harmful to our patients. The wins this session follow wins during the previous session, including passage of new and updated laws to put more prescribing power back in the hands of physicians when medication access is unnecessarily restricted by step therapy. While there has been some doubt as to whether these state laws actually work, I can attest that the new Louisiana step therapy law has allowed stable patients to remain on their medication in a number of specialties, including rheumatology and ophthalmology.

My own state of Louisiana is not the only one where the rheumatology community has seen legislative successes, and that speaks to the strength of the network that rheumatologists have built within their states and across the country, as well as our passion for our patients. Just 3 years after the emergence of accumulator programs, 11 states have already seen fit to curtail their use (Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia), and over 20 states considered adopting similar legislation this year. Reforms to the use of step therapy continue their drumbeat across the country, with three more states (Arkansas, Nebraska, and Oregon) having bills signed into law this year. West Virginia took a bold step to reduce patient out-of-pocket costs at the point of sale by an amount commensurate with 100% of rebates received by a PBM. These material policy wins demonstrate how we continue to successfully chip away at the opacity of PBMs and the rebate system, which is truly at the root of so many of the issues affecting our patients’ care.

At the federal level, rheumatologists engage both with Congress and the administration to ensure that our patients’ voices are represented against very well funded and organized forces like insurers and PBMs. Rheumatologists weighed in on issues ranging from Medicaid payment policy, to copay accumulators in the exchanges, to creating transparency and fixing misaligned incentives in the pharmaceutical supply chain. We drive coalition engagement on issues of shared interest with other specialty and provider groups, such as extending a moratorium on Medicare sequestration. We also engage on narrow issues as they arise: For example, I personally testified before Congress that any proposed limitations on pharmaceutical samples must consider the fact that these samples can provide a critical bridge for patients waiting for their insurers to approve their needed medication. And, perhaps most importantly, we have defeated misguided and potentially devastating Part B payment reform models from the Innovation Center three separate times.

There is more work to be done. And to make it easier to find “Rheum for Action” in your daily work, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations has tools on our website that summarize legislation and facilitate engagement with policy makers, including thank you messages to those who supported our priorities to celebrate the good news this year.

So yes, there is good news now, and more to come! I am optimistic that we will continue to see these advocacy wins, which will help to ensure that those hugs we share with our patients will continue long into the future.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

I receive updates and stories every day from rheumatologists and their offices regarding the egregious behavior of various health care entities that profit off patients and harm them in the process. If you know me, you know I’m willing to tell and retell horror stories of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), especially of how they construct formularies for the most profit, again, harming patients in the process. It’s critical to serve as a voice to counter the PBM trade group, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, which continues to extol how PBMs are essentially saving our country billions ... one restrictive formulary at a time.

It does seem that we are constantly fighting against something:

• Patients arbitrarily being switched to completely different medications to “save” money. These “savings” are pocketed by the middlemen, not the patients or the employers paying for the coverage.
• Copay cards for medications that have no lower-cost alternative. These fill the coffers of the health plans without patients getting credit toward their deductible.
• Mandating that patients move from receiving their infusions under the watchful eye of their rheumatologist’s office to home infusion. This has been shown to be more dangerous for our patients.
• Wasting hours on prior authorization paperwork for needed medication. We know that these are nearly always approved, and thereby delay treatment unnecessarily.

By now you might wonder: “Where is the good news?” In spite of the daily barrage of battles that come our way, rheumatologists continue to do good and improve the lives of our patients. I would go as far as to say that we are prospering in spite of the challenges. Why? Because every day there are wins. Seeing that smile for the first time on the face of a patient who finally has answers and a treatment plan for their newly diagnosed RA. Walking out of the exam room and having patients and their parents give you a hug. Helping a dad be able to walk his daughter down the aisle with ease. On the clinical front, I don’t have to tell you: We score wins every single day.

There is good news on the advocacy side, too. In my own state of Louisiana, this legislative session, we passed a number of bills that are beneficial to our patients, including a bill to stop the aforementioned attacks on copay assistance by state regulated payers. We even blocked one that the Rheumatology Alliance of Louisiana felt would be harmful to our patients. The wins this session follow wins during the previous session, including passage of new and updated laws to put more prescribing power back in the hands of physicians when medication access is unnecessarily restricted by step therapy. While there has been some doubt as to whether these state laws actually work, I can attest that the new Louisiana step therapy law has allowed stable patients to remain on their medication in a number of specialties, including rheumatology and ophthalmology.

My own state of Louisiana is not the only one where the rheumatology community has seen legislative successes, and that speaks to the strength of the network that rheumatologists have built within their states and across the country, as well as our passion for our patients. Just 3 years after the emergence of accumulator programs, 11 states have already seen fit to curtail their use (Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia), and over 20 states considered adopting similar legislation this year. Reforms to the use of step therapy continue their drumbeat across the country, with three more states (Arkansas, Nebraska, and Oregon) having bills signed into law this year. West Virginia took a bold step to reduce patient out-of-pocket costs at the point of sale by an amount commensurate with 100% of rebates received by a PBM. These material policy wins demonstrate how we continue to successfully chip away at the opacity of PBMs and the rebate system, which is truly at the root of so many of the issues affecting our patients’ care.

At the federal level, rheumatologists engage both with Congress and the administration to ensure that our patients’ voices are represented against very well funded and organized forces like insurers and PBMs. Rheumatologists weighed in on issues ranging from Medicaid payment policy, to copay accumulators in the exchanges, to creating transparency and fixing misaligned incentives in the pharmaceutical supply chain. We drive coalition engagement on issues of shared interest with other specialty and provider groups, such as extending a moratorium on Medicare sequestration. We also engage on narrow issues as they arise: For example, I personally testified before Congress that any proposed limitations on pharmaceutical samples must consider the fact that these samples can provide a critical bridge for patients waiting for their insurers to approve their needed medication. And, perhaps most importantly, we have defeated misguided and potentially devastating Part B payment reform models from the Innovation Center three separate times.

There is more work to be done. And to make it easier to find “Rheum for Action” in your daily work, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations has tools on our website that summarize legislation and facilitate engagement with policy makers, including thank you messages to those who supported our priorities to celebrate the good news this year.

So yes, there is good news now, and more to come! I am optimistic that we will continue to see these advocacy wins, which will help to ensure that those hugs we share with our patients will continue long into the future.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

I receive updates and stories every day from rheumatologists and their offices regarding the egregious behavior of various health care entities that profit off patients and harm them in the process. If you know me, you know I’m willing to tell and retell horror stories of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), especially of how they construct formularies for the most profit, again, harming patients in the process. It’s critical to serve as a voice to counter the PBM trade group, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, which continues to extol how PBMs are essentially saving our country billions ... one restrictive formulary at a time.

It does seem that we are constantly fighting against something:

• Patients arbitrarily being switched to completely different medications to “save” money. These “savings” are pocketed by the middlemen, not the patients or the employers paying for the coverage.
• Copay cards for medications that have no lower-cost alternative. These fill the coffers of the health plans without patients getting credit toward their deductible.
• Mandating that patients move from receiving their infusions under the watchful eye of their rheumatologist’s office to home infusion. This has been shown to be more dangerous for our patients.
• Wasting hours on prior authorization paperwork for needed medication. We know that these are nearly always approved, and thereby delay treatment unnecessarily.

By now you might wonder: “Where is the good news?” In spite of the daily barrage of battles that come our way, rheumatologists continue to do good and improve the lives of our patients. I would go as far as to say that we are prospering in spite of the challenges. Why? Because every day there are wins. Seeing that smile for the first time on the face of a patient who finally has answers and a treatment plan for their newly diagnosed RA. Walking out of the exam room and having patients and their parents give you a hug. Helping a dad be able to walk his daughter down the aisle with ease. On the clinical front, I don’t have to tell you: We score wins every single day.

There is good news on the advocacy side, too. In my own state of Louisiana, this legislative session, we passed a number of bills that are beneficial to our patients, including a bill to stop the aforementioned attacks on copay assistance by state regulated payers. We even blocked one that the Rheumatology Alliance of Louisiana felt would be harmful to our patients. The wins this session follow wins during the previous session, including passage of new and updated laws to put more prescribing power back in the hands of physicians when medication access is unnecessarily restricted by step therapy. While there has been some doubt as to whether these state laws actually work, I can attest that the new Louisiana step therapy law has allowed stable patients to remain on their medication in a number of specialties, including rheumatology and ophthalmology.

My own state of Louisiana is not the only one where the rheumatology community has seen legislative successes, and that speaks to the strength of the network that rheumatologists have built within their states and across the country, as well as our passion for our patients. Just 3 years after the emergence of accumulator programs, 11 states have already seen fit to curtail their use (Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia), and over 20 states considered adopting similar legislation this year. Reforms to the use of step therapy continue their drumbeat across the country, with three more states (Arkansas, Nebraska, and Oregon) having bills signed into law this year. West Virginia took a bold step to reduce patient out-of-pocket costs at the point of sale by an amount commensurate with 100% of rebates received by a PBM. These material policy wins demonstrate how we continue to successfully chip away at the opacity of PBMs and the rebate system, which is truly at the root of so many of the issues affecting our patients’ care.

At the federal level, rheumatologists engage both with Congress and the administration to ensure that our patients’ voices are represented against very well funded and organized forces like insurers and PBMs. Rheumatologists weighed in on issues ranging from Medicaid payment policy, to copay accumulators in the exchanges, to creating transparency and fixing misaligned incentives in the pharmaceutical supply chain. We drive coalition engagement on issues of shared interest with other specialty and provider groups, such as extending a moratorium on Medicare sequestration. We also engage on narrow issues as they arise: For example, I personally testified before Congress that any proposed limitations on pharmaceutical samples must consider the fact that these samples can provide a critical bridge for patients waiting for their insurers to approve their needed medication. And, perhaps most importantly, we have defeated misguided and potentially devastating Part B payment reform models from the Innovation Center three separate times.

There is more work to be done. And to make it easier to find “Rheum for Action” in your daily work, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations has tools on our website that summarize legislation and facilitate engagement with policy makers, including thank you messages to those who supported our priorities to celebrate the good news this year.

So yes, there is good news now, and more to come! I am optimistic that we will continue to see these advocacy wins, which will help to ensure that those hugs we share with our patients will continue long into the future.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

State laws permitting recreational marijuana use have not led to an increase in opioid-related emergency department visits, as many had feared.

On the contrary, states that legalize recreational marijuana may see a short-term decrease in opioid-related ED visits in the first 6 months, after which rates may return to prelegalization levels, new research suggests.

Previous research suggests that individuals may reduce the use of opioids when they have an alternative and that cannabis can provide pain relief.

“At the same time, we often hear claims from politicians that we should not legalize cannabis because it may act as a ‘gateway drug’ that leads to use of other drugs,” lead researcher Coleman Drake, PhD, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, told this news organization.

“Our findings indicate that cannabis legalization does not effect any increase in opioid-related ED visits, contradicting the gateway drug explanation,” Dr. Drake said.

The study was published online July 12 in Health Economics.
 

Significant reduction

So far, 19 states have legalized recreational cannabis, meaning that nearly half of the U.S. population lives in a state that allows recreational cannabis use.

The investigators analyzed data on opioid-related ED visits from 29 states between 2011 and 2017. Four states – California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada – legalized recreational marijuana during the study period; the remaining 25 states did not.

The four states with recreational cannabis laws experienced a 7.6% reduction in opioid-related ED visits for 6 months after the law went into effect in comparison with the states that did not legalize recreational marijuana.

“This isn’t trivial – a decline in opioid-related emergency department visits, even if only for 6 months, is a welcome public health development,” Dr. Drake said in a statement.

Not surprisingly, these effects are driven by men and adults aged 25 to 44 years. “These are populations that are more likely to use cannabis, and the reduction in opioid-related ED visits that we find is concentrated among them,” Dr. Drake told this news organization.

However, the downturn in opioid-related ED visits after making marijuana legal was only temporary.

“The effect dissipates after the first 6 months, perhaps because cannabis ultimately is not a treatment for opioid use disorder,” Dr. Drake said.

Encouragingly, he said, the data show that opioid-related ED visits don’t increase above baseline after recreational marijuana laws are adopted.

“We conclude that cannabis legalization likely is not a panacea for the opioid epidemic, but there are some helpful effects,” Dr. Drake said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

State laws permitting recreational marijuana use have not led to an increase in opioid-related emergency department visits, as many had feared.

On the contrary, states that legalize recreational marijuana may see a short-term decrease in opioid-related ED visits in the first 6 months, after which rates may return to prelegalization levels, new research suggests.

Previous research suggests that individuals may reduce the use of opioids when they have an alternative and that cannabis can provide pain relief.

“At the same time, we often hear claims from politicians that we should not legalize cannabis because it may act as a ‘gateway drug’ that leads to use of other drugs,” lead researcher Coleman Drake, PhD, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, told this news organization.

“Our findings indicate that cannabis legalization does not effect any increase in opioid-related ED visits, contradicting the gateway drug explanation,” Dr. Drake said.

The study was published online July 12 in Health Economics.
 

Significant reduction

So far, 19 states have legalized recreational cannabis, meaning that nearly half of the U.S. population lives in a state that allows recreational cannabis use.

The investigators analyzed data on opioid-related ED visits from 29 states between 2011 and 2017. Four states – California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada – legalized recreational marijuana during the study period; the remaining 25 states did not.

The four states with recreational cannabis laws experienced a 7.6% reduction in opioid-related ED visits for 6 months after the law went into effect in comparison with the states that did not legalize recreational marijuana.

“This isn’t trivial – a decline in opioid-related emergency department visits, even if only for 6 months, is a welcome public health development,” Dr. Drake said in a statement.

Not surprisingly, these effects are driven by men and adults aged 25 to 44 years. “These are populations that are more likely to use cannabis, and the reduction in opioid-related ED visits that we find is concentrated among them,” Dr. Drake told this news organization.

However, the downturn in opioid-related ED visits after making marijuana legal was only temporary.

“The effect dissipates after the first 6 months, perhaps because cannabis ultimately is not a treatment for opioid use disorder,” Dr. Drake said.

Encouragingly, he said, the data show that opioid-related ED visits don’t increase above baseline after recreational marijuana laws are adopted.

“We conclude that cannabis legalization likely is not a panacea for the opioid epidemic, but there are some helpful effects,” Dr. Drake said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

State laws permitting recreational marijuana use have not led to an increase in opioid-related emergency department visits, as many had feared.

On the contrary, states that legalize recreational marijuana may see a short-term decrease in opioid-related ED visits in the first 6 months, after which rates may return to prelegalization levels, new research suggests.

Previous research suggests that individuals may reduce the use of opioids when they have an alternative and that cannabis can provide pain relief.

“At the same time, we often hear claims from politicians that we should not legalize cannabis because it may act as a ‘gateway drug’ that leads to use of other drugs,” lead researcher Coleman Drake, PhD, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, told this news organization.

“Our findings indicate that cannabis legalization does not effect any increase in opioid-related ED visits, contradicting the gateway drug explanation,” Dr. Drake said.

The study was published online July 12 in Health Economics.
 

Significant reduction

So far, 19 states have legalized recreational cannabis, meaning that nearly half of the U.S. population lives in a state that allows recreational cannabis use.

The investigators analyzed data on opioid-related ED visits from 29 states between 2011 and 2017. Four states – California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada – legalized recreational marijuana during the study period; the remaining 25 states did not.

The four states with recreational cannabis laws experienced a 7.6% reduction in opioid-related ED visits for 6 months after the law went into effect in comparison with the states that did not legalize recreational marijuana.

“This isn’t trivial – a decline in opioid-related emergency department visits, even if only for 6 months, is a welcome public health development,” Dr. Drake said in a statement.

Not surprisingly, these effects are driven by men and adults aged 25 to 44 years. “These are populations that are more likely to use cannabis, and the reduction in opioid-related ED visits that we find is concentrated among them,” Dr. Drake told this news organization.

However, the downturn in opioid-related ED visits after making marijuana legal was only temporary.

“The effect dissipates after the first 6 months, perhaps because cannabis ultimately is not a treatment for opioid use disorder,” Dr. Drake said.

Encouragingly, he said, the data show that opioid-related ED visits don’t increase above baseline after recreational marijuana laws are adopted.

“We conclude that cannabis legalization likely is not a panacea for the opioid epidemic, but there are some helpful effects,” Dr. Drake said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.